tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN September 6, 2010 12:00pm-5:00pm EDT
company, building a new building, he asked his architects to come up with a design. they said -- do you not want me to put in solar panels? he said he would if they made more money for the company. he sent the architect's home, they said they had a way to put them in, we think he would have a payback after seven years. rogers said the that is not bad , let's put them in and let me buy the company. if i can get that pay off down to four years, it will be better yet. .
teacher who said when you talk to students, there are three things you should do. he said speak up to be heard, and i have a microphone. then he said, sit down to be appreciated. unfortunately for you, i'm not going to follow the third one yet, so here are some questions that have been given to me from the audience. "if you did decide to reduce
carbon emissions," i guess that as a person who took me to heart to decide whether or not it makes sense to do so, "what would be the environmentally economists solution to do it?" if we are going to reduce carbon emissions, let me tell you what will not work. it would not work to use cat and trade. cap and trade is being put out as the way to solve this problem. cap and trade is the notion that we will set a limit on how much carbon emissions there will be. we will deal out the cards to people who get to the met this much carbon, and then we will say what -- now somebody else wants to reduce carbon, you have to buy one of these emissions permits. at the same meeting where i met t.j. rodgers, i also met jeff in help from general electric. just in health -- jeff, after giving an impassioned speech about how greene general
electric -- she might have thought they were green electric rather than general electorate -- how greene generally lesser was and how -- how greene general electric was and how deserving they were to get this, more efficient engines, and so on and so forth. he capped it quite well when i asked him a question, were they really that green or with a just lobbying? he got a little bit mad, and he said, if you are not at the table, you're on the menu. let that soak in for a minute. jeff immelt is at the table in washington, d.c., saying give me a bunch of the carbon credits. and by the way, you peons down there, you want carbon credits, you have to buy them from the congress, the agency that will distribute them. what better deal could you have
other than to have somebody hand you a bunch of really good cash and tell the rest of the people, you want some, you have to go buy it. take those people who are truly innovative entrepreneurs who might get them because they have really found better ways to reduce carbon and put them on the menu. secondly, cap and trade is not going to work because if you think -- it is one thing to enforce emissions in pimlico sound. we can measure them and know what they are. we can go out and say you told the big farmer to clean up his act and he did not do it, so you do not get any credit for that. but try to imagine monitoring carbon emissions. we have a coal-fired -- a coal- fired generating plant. it is easy to go out and say smokestack, carbon emissions.
a friend of mine owns a brewery. he puts out carbon brewing beer, and san francisco is talking about limiting carbon emissions, and he's concerned about that. you can measure carbon emissions. but what about the subsidy of a little -- a company that runs trucks? none of you were breathing because you were in a bidding carbon. -- you were in bidding carbon. you get some credit? in this room, the state, this country, throwing a little place like china that has one of the most rapid economic growth rates on the face of the earth, building 30 or 50 new generator plants every week, and they are not using the most modern technology. do you think we are going to say to them, you do not meet carbon emissions, we are going to do, what, fly in with fighters and bombers? heaven forbid that. but how do we ever enforced this? the chance of the cap and trade working for carbon are nil.
what might environmental economists suggest? here i side totally with the environmental economist to say that what we ought to do -- remember, this started out if you did decide to reduce, and i hadn't but if you did decide to reduce, what would you do? my answer is, i would tax carbon. if you think that is going to happen, you're crazy. no way is congress going to put a carbon tax on. so basically the bottom line is, even if i were looking for a way to reduce carbon emissions, i do not think we have a political way. the good news is, i am not too worried about it. if any of you for one second thinks that you are going to be driving something that we call an automobile in 25 years, and in snot 25, certainly 50 years, think about it a little -- and if not 25 years, certainly 50 years, think about it a little while. i do not know how we are going to get around. i do not know whether scottie
from star trek will be beaming us here or there, but we will not be -- we will not be sitting in cars as we do today. how many of you could imagine having a laptop of the kind that we have today, 20 years ago you were lucky to have a desktop, maybe even use a mainframe computer at your corporation or university. technological change, or hazmat ridley talked-about come the ability of human beings -- or as matt really talked about, the ability -- what market-based solutions for cleaning up air in the u.s. and internationally? i would simply say that, as i discussed, cap and trade is applied to pimlico sound, those
work in specific regions even if those regions go beyond, say, city, county, or state. take for example the use of so2 trading permits put forward in the clean air act. so2 permits are regularly traded on the chicago mercantile exchange. there were specified in terms of how much could be in it, mostly from power plants, since they were the main cause of acid rain. we could easily measure a much so2 -- how much so2 coming out of a plant with almost no technology whatever. easy to measure and monitor and the people comply. those kinds of things work very well, especially at the local level. get to the more regional level, slightly greater problems, but even there, most of the acid rain problems in new england
emanated out of coal-fired generating plants in the midwest. that trading scheme has greatly reduced the sulfur emissions. as soon as you step across the international border and it can be even one where as friendly as we are, with our neighbors to the north, canada, those kinds of systems work less well. it is very hard for us to go to a sovereign nation and say abide by this cap we might do it with canada. we will never do it with mexico and we will not do it with places like china. please comment on recycling, when and how does it work and not work. what does it cost? we have fortunately heard this afternoon from the trash me man, my colleague van benjamin, who published a work on the myths of recycling. i will do my best to summarize
him in very few words. when does it work? not very often. how does it work? not very well. what does it cost? a lot. pretty well summarizes everything there is to know about recycling. it works when -- back to my concluding remarks -- it works when it is profitable. so aluminum works pretty well because in fact it makes economic sense. how does it work? with private incentives of people saying, hey, it is worth something to me to recycle my aluminum cans. it does not work when we end up spending far more -- and i do not mean just in the more money because money is just a way of measuring -- when we end up spending more resources, driving the paper that is not worth -- worth negativeoun amounts to have it stored in a
warehouse, then it does not work. all we are doing is wasting resources. you may really enjoy, you may get tremendous satisfaction out of worshiping at your local recycling bin. if that is what makes you happy, do it all you want. but do not do it thinking you are greener than i am. do you feel that the movement for green lifestyle is holding back or helping innovation? great question. thou is thereener than need to innovation in wind generation because we throw lots of money at it and people say money, i will take it. so people are willing to put money into wind generation, and hence we have had some generation. does it make sense? well, if it made sense, we would not have to throw federal money at it to make it happen. so is the green revolution
holding back innovation? i think there is one sense it is not, and i will come back to the in one sense it is, and i will come back to the recycling point. i remember recently picking up one of these water bottles that you buy at the store, crystal springs, or whatever, and it says something about this eco- friendly water bottle, thinner walls, shorter, lighter cap and all these things, and i think all these people -- i think aren't these people wonderful. wait a minute, why did they do that? maybe it has to do with higher oil prices, lower transportation costs, and if they jump on the green bandwagon and innovated in part because they thought they would get a larger share of the market, i guess in that sense green does stimulate innovation. of them that, i think it is not a main driver -- other than that, i think it is not a main driver. at all has to do whether or not it is profitable.
what do you do -- what you make of colorado's right to flow laws and commercial whitewater rafting -- perhaps losses at the end of estimates. not very much because i do not know what they are. but nevertheless, i am a professor, and let never let the fact that i do not know something stop me from professing. the right to flow and commercial where water rafting laws have to do with laws that allow people to float on rivers. researchers that are raftable. here is a case where, in case i sound like a complete anarchist, which pretty much am, let me suggest there is certainly a role for legal political
governmental institutions, in the case of some resources. rivers that flow across boundaries are a classic case. when a river flows from colorado to nevada and on down to california, there's a potential for a lot of problems across the state lines. so there is a role for government to help decide how much does colorado get, how much does the bottom yet, california, and all the other states. imagine what it would be like if you or i owned the right to the mississippi river right where it enters the delta. anybody want to come through? pay to get through, my tollgate. it would be the same as owning all the land almost because it would allow you to capture the value of any goods that ever were produced upstream and floated downstream or any goods that were produced outside their and taken upstream could capture the value unless there was an
alternative form of a dissertation, say, railroads. it would be a case -- any alternative form of transportation, say, railroads. there is a good case to be made for keeping navigable rivers open to some sort of public access, certainly in the case of commerce, but even in the case of recreation. imagine if you get on the river and you say i'm going to give people a thrill and whitewater raft down the river, and let's say you put in on natural forest lands and you go for 2 miles and come around the bend and here is a big gate in front of you and a toll booth, and you're back pedaling as fast as you can in the class four rapids, trying to stop iraq in time to pay the toll. holy cow, -- to stop your raft in time to pay the toll. holy cow, that would not make
much sense. you can imagine there would be a case where there is a case to be made for keeping that river open. on the other hand, suppose you are taking a small stream that flows through one or two properties and you say it is water, too, should we just open it to everybody? after all, god or somebody put water on the earth for people. isn't it only fair that everybody gets the access to that water? there is a slight problem there. are people going to take care of that water in that stream? i will give you the story from montana. the story from montana is that a stream in western montana -- actually, an irrigation ditch -- was transformed into a trout fishery that has cost about $1 million a mile, not something that everybody can engage in, but if you have ever talked to chuck, chuck schwab can afford it, one of the owners on the little irrigation ditch. he and his neighbors put in $1 million a mile, making an irrigation ditch in to a trout
stream. guess what all the local fisherman said. as a wonderful place to fish, i want to fish there. he was not interested in a price. he won a privacy. one of his neighbors was more cantankerous, he willis. if you are my age, you may have heard of that name -- he was lewis. he said if you cross my stream, i will call the sheriff. and he did. they said wait a minute, we have the right to access our water. they turned off the water that was being diverted into the stream, the trout fishery was wiped out. and if you like to fish there, they do not care because there is not any fish to fish for. so there is a fine line between
open access for all those purposes and maintaining our resources. the question is, i will translate this into a broader terms. how do environmental groups treat the resources that they own, that they actually have some claim to? the question is with respect to the audubon society, which does own many acres of private reserves? the answer is they treat them just as if they were economists. they may consider some values that are not necessarily market values per they may say if you are the audubon society, are members care about saving birds and that is what we will put really high on the list. but if we can develop resources on those lands insensitive ways that allow us to get what we want, more bird habitat, then we will do it. it is that sort of accountability, that sort of
willingness to take a look at the values that we want as environmentalists, vis a vis other kinds of resources, and balance the two. they come back to how -- this time i promise i will sit down to be appreciated -- if we can find ways that balance the cost against the benefit, that we put on our economic hats and think about those costs and benefits and try to find those things for which the benefits actually exceed the costs, especially when it is profitable in the private sector, then it is more likely that we will be greener than dow. -- greener than thou. if we treat the land like it belongs to all of us, we will have a less vibrant economic system with less environmental
quality. thank you very much. [applause] >> that discussion from colorado springs, hosted by the center for the study of government and the individual. today we will have coverage of president obama, live at 3:10 p.m. eastern, delivering remarks on the economy at the milwaukee labor fest in henry meyer festival park. the white house says he will ask congress for $50 billion to kick off a new infrastructure plan designed to expand and renew the nation paused roads, railways, and runways. we will bring you his announcement again at 8:00 p.m. eastern. on wednesday, he will make an announcement at korea hope that community college in parma come -- at korea hope tcuyahoga commy
college in parma. today it on c-span, gerry thomas, founder of the activism website liberty central, and wife of supreme court justice clarence thomas, she talked about the pproblems facing america, and the steps she thinks should be taken to help conservatives retake congress in the midterm elections. that will be a father top 35 eastern -- that will be at 5:35 p.m. eastern on c-span. the house of commons, standing up its weakened prime minister's questions to challenge david cameron, leader of the conservative party coalition with liberal democrats. the five candidates include two brothers, ed and david milliband.
>> sky news liberal leadership debate live from norwich. 20 days' time, a new leader of the opposition will be chosen by the labor party. we had the tony and gordon show all week, so can one of the five candidates here finally bury the -- take the fight back to the coalition government? voting has started in this congress -- in this contest, so there is everything to play for. we come here at the suggestion of the labor party because the candidates for leadership and yet to hold a contest in east anglia. our first candidate, ed balls, it is a local boy born here. nexium we have an milliband, to the north, -- next to him we had ed milliband, to the north, and his elder brother, david
milliband, the shuttle field and self foreign secretary. andy burnham represents the end of the house secretary. diane abbott is hackney north and stoke millington. we are here to open in norridge -- norwich. some of the people associate with open are here this morning. our main audience is divided into two groups, labor party members and activists from east anglia. on the left of the aisle as you look at them, and on the other side of the aisle we have independently selected a sample of voters from the region from all parties, and the party and the public are the two groups, that whoever emerges as the winner will have to persuade, will have to win over if they are to become the next prime minister. questions have been submitted by the audiences here and by
viewers and website readers on line of sky news. let's get down to the debate. [applause] the first question the first question is from the local member of the european parliament, richard. >> good morning. sadly, the general election for the first time since 1945, no labor and he was elected in historic east anglia. what reasons are there for the decline of party support in regions like this? if you are elected leader, how will you reverse the decline? >> thank you very much indeed, david milliband? >> richard, you and i spent time in norwich last week, and the message was consistent and clear -- labor was not offering enough to people in east anglia to get them to vote for us.
they did not think we were on their side on jobs, crime, welfare. they were not -- did not think we were clear enough on what we would offer for the future. immigration was a big issue. people want a fair immigration system, but for people living in the country and people who want to come here. what do we do about it? we don't just listen to the people in the leadership, we carry on listening. final thing, we turn the labor party into a campaign community. >> thank you very much. 30 seconds. diane abbott? >> i think we have to restore trust in politics. there was a collapse in just generally across the country. you cannot tell me about immigration. my first speech in parliament 22 years ago was about this subject, and i know immigration with the people. because i have done so much worked in the last few -- what we need to be aware of is there are real issues about --
>> we have to return to emigration later on. but i think the reality was that in too many communities in norwich, in the midwest towns of canada and the -- people in the past said i do not think you are standing up for us enough. i think the politicians are all the same period if labour did not have a distinctive message, people caring about jobs, housing, university finance, we are going to stand up for you, it is no surprise people did not turn out and vote for us. that is what happened, i am afraid. we have to get back on people's side so that they say labor -- >> thank you. >> i think here and across the south of england we have not addressed the problems with housing, access to housing. that was a big failure of our government. routing down and making their way in the world.
labor by the end of our time in government, we have become dangerously disconnected from ordinary people. it looks as times as though we were on the side of big business, not ordinary people. the elites in the media and business are not standing up for what we believe in right, our principles. >> thank you. ed milliband? >> richard, thank you for what you do. we have to be a party of every part of this country. the way we win back support is by recognizing that new labor was right to say we need to be a part of -- to be a part of middle and lower income, but we have to have the courage for change. we have to have the courage to change on a whole series of policies -- low pay, tuition fees, civil liberties. if we have the courage to change, we can win back power in this region and across the country. >> let's get some reaction from the audience on the problems of labour in this region. phil harris, you have some
thoughts? >> yes. good morning. i was like the candidate in north norfolk in the last election. i saw labor camps from 14,000 -- i saw labor caps -- labour cannot win here. the cabinet minister named no. no. for it as a place to leave out. does ed balls stand on voting or -- >> ed balls? >> as you know, my mom and dad are members and residents up there, and there are lots of people who voted for the liberal democrat to be the tories. i said to them that i would never do that, but i understand when people do. they're people all across our country who want the liberal
democrats to stop the tories, and they find out that it cuts to -- it cuts the public service we will never ever do it again. i think it is shameful. >> the truth is i think we have got to learn from that because it sends out a confusing signal as the labor party. we should be fighting for labor until the final vote is in. we need to rediscover the courage of our convictions. it looks to me we really did not believe in what we were saying in fighting for. and we have to get back in the business of big social change. too often in the last 16 years we were frightened of our own shadow, a friend of anything that would upset the newspapers or the media -- frightened of anything that would upset the newspapers or the media. >> i'm the only candidate that actually doubled their majority on an increase turnout. i think all those people, whether it is individuals or newspaper columnists who
recommended tax collecting as a way to keep the tories out are having to eat their words. the question for us as a party is how do we reunite in order to push this conservative coalition out of office. >> it is no good planning liberal democratic voters. we have to see what we did wrong after the election. i think the problem that we have is that they claim to be the party of fairness and social justice and they have now cruelly the trade that. but we need to show that we have a distinct entity we have to change. inequality is the biggest problem in the party and we have to talk about it. the gap is too wide. unless we are on a journey ourselves, we will not win back the lost lid them supporters. >> the reason i feel i'm the unity candidate is because i have set out how we can appeal not just to excellent -- ex-
democratic voters, ex- conservative voters, ex-green voters, by setting out a moral economy, whether it is all the way up and all the way down, that can beat david cameron's big society idea, meaning government does less than you do more, by saying government has to be on your side. >> quickly on this? >> no. >> to say one thing, it is really dangerous if we make the only issue the liberal democrats if he did not vote at all or voted conservative, to persuade them to come back to labor as well. both democrat or you'll get a tory government, they made the people feel betrayed. >> we move on to a question from one of our candidates in each section. they are going to pose a question for the other four. this goes to david milliband. >> we are all standing to be leader of our party, potentially
prime minister. my question is what the toughest decision that my colleagues have taken parliament or the government? >> ed milliband? >> i think the toughest decision was the reason i did it is because i think i have a distinctive message about the liberal party needing to change. the truth is -- tony was a great bieber up -- leader of our party, and he was right that we had to appeal to all sections of the party. unless we have the courage to change on a range of issues, we will find that we will not win back power. >> i think the toughest decision before i was then and he was to make an argument to tony blair and the cabinet that to join the euro as a singular currency would be a terrible mistake for our country. i think history has proven that to be a good call. the toughest thing and government is dealing with the aftermath of the tragedy of the
peter and his death, the media theory, but at the same time having to restore confidence in making a very tough decision. >> as health secretary, i decided to change policy because i believe we sent out the wrong message for 10 years, public bad, private good. the day i made this change, you might as well have had a tumbleweed down the tables for the lack of support. i am passionate about our national health, so i think it is the finest achievement of our labour party. i will defend it with everything i have got from the attack is about to come under. but that was a tough decision. when you push something through without support from your colleagues. >> diane? >> i think one of the toughest decisions was to take the decision to vote against the iraq war. convey thessible to compare
pressure. it was characterized as an issue of loyalty to tony blair. but at the end, what i heard and the facts and opinions of i voted against it, i voted against it, and i'm proud that i stood up for that decision. [applause] >> what do you think of those answers? >> my own answer to the question would be that on the occasions i went to afghanistan as foreign secretary, i looked at young people who were half my age, young enough to be my son and daughter, and ask myself about the sacrifice that we were asking them to make. that is the human scale of politics. no one who goes into politics would never make a decision like that to put themselves into harm's way if you were not absolutely convinced that they were making a difference, and second, that it was an essential for national security.
>> this is all about reconnecting labor to the voters, as we are hearing. so we have a written test to see how it touched the candidates with life outside westminster. each is going to write down their response to this question, and after the commercial break we will tell you who got it right and who got it wrong. we will do this five times. from norwich, with apologies to our younger viewers who will not remember sale of the century, it is sale of the week. you have a piece of paper to write on, haven't you? we will get them to you very quickly during the break. the question is, according to a petrol prices not come, what is the average price to egg gallon of unleaded petrol? -- to a gallon of unleaded petrol? welcome back to the leader --
the labor leadership today. our candidates are going to have five questions to the first question, what is the price of a liter of petrol. the answer is 1 pound, 15. ed milliband, devin milliband, and andy burnham got the right. -- david milliband, and any burnham -- and andy burnham got that right. diane abbott did not get that right on principle. she does not drive. [laughter and applause] diane abbott is going to answer this first. would you describe yourself as a socialist, and what does that mean to you? >> i would describe myself as a socialist, and if it means anything, it is being able to bring society together to make it more equal, to make it more just, and always to be sure
that the voiceless have a voice. >> david milliband? >> yes, because it means that what we do together is greater than what we can do on our own. the words social speaks to the most basic part of who we are, which is that we get our identity and our freedom from what we are able to construct together. >> and milliband? >> yes, because we need to be able to criticize the injustices of capitalism. we can have a capitalist system for many generations to come, but we need to be willing to say there are injustices that we want to deal with, and new labor's mistake is where we need to change. >> yes, i joined labor 25 years ago for the spread of health, wealth, at life chances in this country. for all the progress we have made down the decades, it is still the case that the post code where you're born determines pretty much how you will end up in life. so i am in politics to change that. i am a socialist. >> yes, and i said the same
thing to the state's five years ago. for the previous generation, socialist meant the soviet union, a command economy prefer our generation, the -- a command economy. for our generation, the definition has moved on. collective action is what delivers a good economy. >> ed balls -- tony blair, or brown? >> i think they were a great partnership, but in the end, gordon brown. >> diane abbott? >> gordon brown. tony blair may have been more telegenic, but gordon brown was the better man. >> david milliband? >> because neither tony -- tony is not on the ballot paper, gordon is not on the ballot paper, tony foot is on the ballot paper. there is a new generation on the ballot paper, how we retry the
battles of the past. >> i was 100% loyal to tony blair. i was 100% loyal to gordon brown because i am a loyal labor man through and through. but not everybody in the labor party or parliament can say they were 100% loyal to both. because of that, i can unite labor going forward. >> both of them because they were -- the question for labor is how do we move on, and do we have the courage to leave behind as the goods of the 1980's? that generation of politicians came of age in the 1980's. we have to be willing to move on from that generation, in the way we do our politics and policies. >> let's move on now to our next substantive question, from marie field, the labour counsellor. >> what can you as potential
leaders offer the people on the middle of the latter who have hardly ever claimed benefits, the ones who purdum lasik for a small private pension -- who prudently saved for a small private pension? they are the backbone of this country and this is where i believe voter apathy lies the most. i'm talking about $25,000 a year or less. >> politicians speak in the extremes to much. >> yes. >> ok. andy burnham. >> marie, thank you for the work you do as a counselor. you're completely right. what i have seen in this campaign is people who feel they're struggling to get by. they're working harder, longer for less money. when i say abort tuition fees and replace them with a graduate tax, that is designed to relieve the burden on many people in
britain who worry about the debt their kids are going to get into and feel they ought to give their kids money they do not have. we are absolutely right, we have to appeal across -- >> david milliband. >> this goes to the heart of labor's challenge because the tory trapped for us is to be forced to choose between those who are the poorest in britain and those in the middle. what people in the middle know is that they have to work for a living or those who are born into wealth do not have to. it is as wrong to cheat on the benefits system as it is to play games with pensions on the trading floors of the city, and we need to be the people who say that fair tax is a right way forward, hard work and the dignity of work is a right way forward, and public services about excellence is the essence of our field. >> >> you are right to raise the question in middle english. with public sector cut overall
-- with public sector cut overall, that will hit britain the truly hard. i am your woman. i do one of the most popular shows on the channel, and for my yours, what is the next favorite program? it is a "midsummer murder." i am the candidate to speak to "midsummer murder" watchers. >> are you on that show still? >> of course. >> with loyalty, sometimes you have to challenge people. the meeting that we had with tony blair early on the government, where i said to him what do you think the average income is, and he said 40,000 pounds to 60,000 pounds per the problem is that when you get into the mindset, you did not actually understand that most people do not come from that, and they say taking away our tax credits, making us pay tuition fees is not fair. many people feel that they work hard and pay the taxes. we have the responsibility to say to other people have got to work as well and we will lessen
the burden on families for whom it is tough. sometimes it looks as if we would make it tough on some of those policies. >> andy burnham. >> the 10 years i saw my grandmother go into care, it was the most cruel, sold destroying journey i have been through. ever since then i have been on a mission to change things in our country. everything they have worked for are taken away from them at the end of their life if they need cash. i believe it can be for labor. [applause] it could give everybody peace of mind, plus it could help them protect everything they have worked for, and it combines the best of all libber with the best of new labor. >> out what -- of labor with the best of new labor.
>> say for the life they have built up something, but they do -- they could not pass that onta of to give us a better life than she. we have to have at our system rewards for people who do the right thing? emery was talking about. >> you talk about a free system that is not free, is it? people have to pay some sort of -- let's be clear. >> everybody can protect the 90% of what they -- yes, we have to be back in the business of making a difficult argument to the public. not be frightened to say i believe this, i have a passion, but i am changing the care system and our country. >> there is this crucial question about where is middle england and where does it lie. we put a top rate of tax on 150,000 pounds a year. that was fair to reduce the
deficit but also fair for society to protect them. for example, the cuts in public services. i think we can not appeal to middle england, but bill in men is reliable in the public services, for example. much of the use our public services, and ed is right to say that sometimes we got it wrong. >> italy knows more ththere is s a free lunch. i also think it is very important that we send a very clear message that we are part of this, determined to be serious and credible about growth in our economy, but also credible are reducing the deficit. their economic strategy is threatening to grow, and in the end it will benefit and reduce taxes by pushing up unemployment. we have to have a policy that says we know how to grow the economy but we are also serious about reducing the deficit.
but let's move on now to the question, the candidate question, this time from ed milliband. >> i think all the candidates in the election have brought an important contribution to it. as leader of the labor party, i want to draw on the talents of everyone across the party. i think andy, for example, has brought a fantastic idea to it. i would like the other candidates to say what they think the other thing, another thing that has gone on in this conference. >> in different ways, all the candidates made important arguments. i'm not going to choose one. i can go through all four. andy is right to make the case for the national weather service. it is right to remind us that new labor 1997 said the radical but credible, that make sure you understand something very important as well. diane abbott has always challenged us to not fall for
false consensus. >> andy burnham? >> the thing about this congress to labor is is not a deal logically split. we have bali of the same view of what we can do, and that is the strength of labor. we have got to be on the side of aspiration, helping kids particularly from the lease back on to get on with life. wish to \ g the in a situatio where those young people feel they cannot get -- >> diane abbott? >> i have to tell you that i have to single out one country. i think consistently, but one candidate. i think consistently ed balls has given us the clearest and most emphatic explanation of why you cannot cut your way out of the recession with what is wrong. >> i sort of answer the
previous one, so preaching the virtues of consistency, i cannot change my mind now. when andy has been campaigning on is one of importance. 150 people are going to be hit with more -- care cost of 150,000 pounds a year. for women, there is especially from line of caring for kids but also for older people. this issue, whether or not we can come together as a society and make sure that we are part of insurance scheme that pretends not just one of us but of all must -- i think that goes to the heart. >> you're watching sky news, the labor leadership today. we will pause for news headlines briefly. >> welcome back to norwich and the sky news labor leadership
today. we have been discussing david milliband's question about who the other two were -- >> i think all of the candidates are bringing something to the campaign. it is so poor and that we unite as a party behind the new leader. of all we saw under gordon must happen, i think, when the new leader is elected. that does not mean you stop the bidding policy because parties will stop the bidding policy to become outdated. but we then have to focus on this coalition government. >> can we say come what may? we are going to see all five of you, whatever happens to whoever wins? >> that has been a matter of the public. i think everyone has merit. >> they're going to be there? >> happy to be there, subject to the labor party. this comes from john knowles.
>> when you deal with the public, the large section of the community who feel this affected by politics, especially those who consider themselves under class who have been treated unfairly compared to many adults, because for a period of probably more than 40 years -- >> andy burnham, what would you do for the section of the committee who feels affected by politics. >> i don not feel that race is part of it here. labor did look dangerously disconnected from ordinary working people. people the lost sight of who we are -- is highly the wrong message to confuse people. people who were told they would have a council housing, a
massive problem. i would argue it drove concerns at the last -- people could not live -- >> john, you are right because i have seen this going up and down the country. politics does not make a difference to them. it does not matter who you vote for. that is why i think campaign for policies which will make a difference, like a living wage -- not just the minimum wage of 5 pounds 80 an hour. one of the things that labor did was make -- we do not take for granted anyone in voting for labor. >> there is a real sense of issues. one, housing employment on welfare. that critical group of issues. people feel they are not being given the right opportunities, but also they know there are responsibilities in return. and i think we have to say very clearly that, yes, society will
give you a chance, but you have the responsibility to take it up because it is very important for the second thing, you mentioned immigration. we have to be comfortable talking about immigration. if we are not comfortable talking about it, people will think we have something to hide. the immigration system needs to be fair for people who want to come here. i'm the first person in my family to be born in this country. this country has given the tremendous opportunity. this is really important. >> we will come back. >> come on. it is only fair. >> the question that there was any street in new labor -- and i knew that myself in the 1990's. there was a street in new labor that believed in this working- class support. that they had nowhere else to go. and so they were focusing on others. it was the lack of focus on the
working class support, black and white, why we did not introduce new regulations on agency workers, why did we scrap the m p tax rate. i know people mock it, but we moved from being a party of the working class and others to being a party which spoke at people rather than for people. >> we will get a chance to come back here, but let's -- [applause] >> when the stock exchange thing with court brown happen, his reaction -- when i heard the case, i realize i was waiting to hear someone like her 2000, 3000 times. she was a labor leader who said that i'm worried that my daughter is waiting two years for a council house, that my son may not get a job next year. not to recognize and here that i am afraid was out of touch at
that point, and we have got to get back in touch. i think addressing the issues that we have talked about, the largest membership in the country -- the idea that if you fought abroad for our armed forces committee have a british passport, you have the wrong color skin, that puts you back, and that is not susceptible. we have got to make the case for diversity and fairness, but also -- >> i am trying to give you all each fault -- all equal time. >> i went to see mrs. duffy and she supported me in this leadership campaign and she supported me because of ideas about housing, employment, and the regeneration of towns. because if we forget towns, where not an actual party, and we do not serve our purpose, which is to be a progressive force in this country. >> for me, labor is nothing if not about breaking down -- a look like we were courting the super rich --
let me make this important point. >> more specifically, what do you say about immigration? >> we have gone terribly relaxed about the gap in society. well, i was never, but i do not know what they are any more. >> i want to make this point, that immigration is a valid tell issue. if you're in the building trade and you see people coming in to compete for your job, you worry about the lost wages and conditions. if you're looking to hire a builder, it is good for you. that goes to the question i am raised. we should be much tougher about say we have got to protect people's wages and conditions with the right laws of labor and work. my constituency was saying -- >> the fact is that it is business which makes the case a free markets, and we should make the case for fair market. we should have us legislation
to -- also, you have half profit controls and wages to stop undercutting, which is really unfair. if we make the case for free migration, we can win the argument for migration. you do not talk about finishing the argument. >> i am the daughter of immigrants. i've also been in parliament for 25 years and i know when a message system is. my mother came here to nurse and in 1960's, a pitcher did so much to the public sector. will we need to do is address the real issues but never fall into -- yesterday posset to make that is the same to us. >> that is true. we will also speak to common sense. the system of benefits around europe where people could come and work here -- and we want them to you that -- but also we said benefits back to children
not living in this country. that fills a basic common sense. >> we must speak up for common sense, but looking at all the issues around controls and facing it, we need to be prepared to stand up. because in the end, nothing destroys politicians who more than the perception that we are only saying -- >> back to what you heard. >> well, i am impressed. i would like to say that i'm actually -- i'm not entirely english either. but i'm probably less british then you are, actually. but, you know, we have to become united as a country, and we are not at the moment. we have to be fair to all immigrants, but we also have to
expect them to accept our culture. >> let's move on now to the candidates questioned the time -- this time. >> earlier in the last week, i challenged the media consensus that there is no alternative to cuts in public spending now, and actually we should spend more on housing and jobs in order to support the economic recovery. >> the question? >> my question is what other areas to the candidates think we need to challenge the media consensus? >> ed is right. the biggest political risk to liberate now is the financial liberation. we need principal alternatives to the destructive path on which the coalition has placed the country. so i have made the argument for taking longer to pay back the deficit. i believe more should come because times like this, if we have cooks that we're looking
at, i have all read it -- i have also made a difficult argument that we should not give the in a chest real term increases. i would just give it an inflationary increase because s.e effect of giving the nhl' such increase could be devastating. >> he is right to say that we should challenge the consensus, and i would challenge that we need a consensus on the point. indeed is telling you that the election is between two milliband brothers. quote we are saying to you is that there is everything it is not the media who decides to the neignext labor party leader is. >> the last 13 years work -- the most dangerous idea, media consensus is that -- the national minimum wage, the saving of our national health service, the tremendous strides in education, the poorer schools improving faster than anywhere
else -- the greatest danger for the future part of britain is that we had 13 years wasted when in fact this country is more common than it was in 1997, and we understand with an absolute passion that if we trash our record, no one else will believe us in the future. >> ed >> i think we should take a check -- change the tax and spending balance. i think we should get more out of the banks in order to protect public services, child benefits, and other things. we need to have a bigger argument. is the only thing that matters over the coming four years to reduce the deficit? the coalition government want to to believe that it does not matter of happens to your schools, youth club, but if we've said that after 1945, we would not have built the
national health service. we need to challenge the media consensus on that. [applause] >> do you really think there is a media consensus saying that? most people are filled with cuts at potential cuts. >> what we're being told is there is no choice, no alternative. cut and cut now. there is no other way. that is the mistake of the 1930's in the 1980 party. you do not cut your way to recovery. we should be building more houses and wish to be investing into new schools. they are charged the cancelling them all around the country to get more people [applause] >> we will pause now to a knowledge. we will have a break and we have another round of questions we will ask our quiet -- after candidates. the question is, which long-
running tv drama finished a good -- for good this week? we find that they know the answer in just a moment. welcome back to the sky news labor leadership debate. we are asking the question which long-running tv drama finished this week. the answer is "the bill." he said gntv. not quite a drama yet. [applause] let's move on to some quick fire questions seeking quick responses from the candidates. the question is, is a fresh investigation needed into the
news of the world phone hacking allegations? >> yes, it is. these are very serious allegations which goes to the heart of david cameron. the very respected news organization says that they knew about the phone hacking as it was taking place. there was systematic phone hacking taken place. >> yes, but also the question is when there are questions about the integrity, they try to sweep it under the carpet. there should be a proper organization to sort this out. >> yes, there should be an investigation. it is inconceivable that if you did not know what they were doing not just once or twice but systematically. in the end, it was david
cameron park to judgment. >> yes. and the bus could have been on this to people of those people being hacked. it is very important at a time when we are serious about technology and years of power by the state that if there are private organizations abusing secrecy and phone records, we need to know. >> yes. mr. cameron has been delivering public speeches about trust in politics. it is fundamental to the information that the government puts out. we cannot keep having these questions. they need to be cleared up once and for all. >> thank you. we do banned the wearing of the gurkha? >> what has happened in france
is worrying. it has inflamed tensions at the heart of europe. what message does that set out to the most of community of? -- set out to the muslim community? >> freedom of speech and the freedom of what you wear it is a very important right that we have in this country. i think this is an incredibly tolerant country and we should be proud of britain. i do not think we should ban what people wear. >> absolutely not. being british is about being tolerant and respecting each other and whether people are roman catholic, muslim, or jewish, they have a different background. absolutely not. >> you where willie hats or -- wooly hats or a burka.
it is a not issue. my issue is tolerance for people. >> we have to do more than that. we need to dr. rush strengthening integration. it is not enough just to do more of what we like whether to schooling, and climate, community, we have to bring people together across the lines of race and religion. we should be saying whether you want to wear a turban or across, that is your life. >> you talk about being the country together, and i think i present to more than you do. you're quite right. generations of immigrants were more passionate about being british than people who are born here. >> we need to reply quickly on this one. >> what happened at the general
election, a number of punjabs were up in arms about the number of polish. >> is the biggest threat. [applause] >> of course people should be free, but they should be able to wear a cross at work. that should not happen either. >> next question from the audience comes from mr. sullivan. >> we had a bit of a honeymoon with a new prime minister. how do we avoid the mistakes of the torries?
>> two things. we lost the election in 1983 because we did not go out there and debate with the country. there were internal divisive debates. the viewer says, public support is there and they wait for the paint to hit. it is nonsense. in one year, george osborne could say that he is sorry and it is all our fault. we need to be out there leading the debate, not following it and say that there is an alternative and the welfare state, public service and jobs. it is a hard thing to do to check the consensus. >> it is all about timing and doing this with responsibility. i think the public does not want to see the labor party attacking everything. we've got to understand and respect that. it is seven that will fundamentally damage this
country in the long term. in my view, we need to reform every inch because it is threatening the fabric of our nationality. and combine this with an unnecessary and dangerous -- >> we should find the mother of all battles? >> this is a central question for us. i think they are right to drop by the cards, but i would go after them on their attack than rigid on several things we value. >this is not a majority tory government. the less important thing for our party is the next election so we defeat a coalition cabinet. we need liberal democrats to realize that they should not
follow him. >> we have to make sure we respect voters to get them back. we have to beat the conservative party. that means opposing, but also having an alternative. you can never win a general election just by being good opposition. we still lead an opposition and expose where they go wrong, but we needed labor party to our people's trust i have a credible alternative on jobs, health, crying, antisocial behavior. labor needs to be on the pitch not as opposition but as a party. >> they are not inevitable costs. you should have seen tory faces when george osborne did his budget. this is not about going to
extremes but ordinary british people. do not want to see the big cuts in services or the jobs it goes with that. they want a big program in public-sector housing. they do want more job security. as these cuts rollout, people will say -- >> i think we should be very careful about these ideas that the coalition is new politics. in the budget they said it is a fair budget which is progressive and it turns out the hardest hit is families with children and the lowest income and they're taking a 11 pound week in cuts. that is not new politics, that is conservative on fairness been propped up with some in the liberal democrat party. and is a return to the 1980's. we should see it for what it is. [applause]
but the question is whether believe -- >> the question is whether they believe they are necessary or not. >> let's set out a credible alternative on the economy. lots of people immediately argued. the financial times came out and said they were right. if you're willing to challenge the consensus, you can win the argument. >> we have to understand we need to change rules. take some of those diverted liberal democrats. there are a whole range of issues and we have to show we can go on a journey. to the conservative voters rebuffed us, we need to show them we have a different vision of society. we can show we can improve their lives. we do need credible policies and need to understand this.
>> you said something of wanted to take you walk on. -- take you up on. [laughter] >> i said people obviously do not want quds but whether they think that are necessary or not. >> these cuts are not due to labour responsibility of. this is why i have said consistently that we should not make ordinary people pay with these cuts. [applause] >> i wonder what if anyone wants to come in from our audience on this question. the question here. wait for the microphone. >> i would quite like to ask everyone else you use the word
change a lot. change what for what? my name is penney. >> i think the change we need is we need to recognize where we were right and where we were wrong as a government. millions of people are stuck in low-paying work. i think these fees have become a barrier to aspiration in this country. if you look at the 3,000 pounds and 10,000 pound fees, it will be really hard for people to get to university because there is a fee -- a fear of debt. we need to defend our record and expect ready to move on and change things. >> we need to move on from this. >> i would like to ask all by fellow contenders that the ideas you have put forward for the future in this race, which would you say the best define your of leadership? >> one idea?
>> of the importance of a continuing program for cattle house building. we need to listen to our people and councils. we would be meeting a very real social need. people come in from outside, it was our biggest failure, count the housing. >> the policy answer is to double the bank would be so we can support manufacturing. i think the biggest thing i have done in this campaign is to turn politics inside out. we have tried when thousand community leaders including here in norwich to fight against the absurd county council plan which is going back to the dark ages. we tried 1000 community leaders to be living breathing demonstration of how the labor party can be changed in their community. we should be the allies of the people if they're going to be the allies of us.
>> i think lauren the tuition fees does a good for us. we have a market in higher education. what does that mean? my constituency will be told they can go to 18 -- you can pay 18,000 pounds to go here. we know how divided our country is by class income and wealth. replace them with a fairer graduate tax than a few are a teacher or a social worker. [applause] >> on tuesday i set out a detailed plan to spend 6 billion pounds this year and? for more affordable homes which could create millions of jobs and deliver the homes people need in the public sector at a time when the private sector is
shutting construction jobs left and right because they dare not build the houses or the jobs. can we afford it? we cannot afford not to do this at the moment. we have rising unemployment and a longer recession. >> they all have merit. and i prefer [inaudible] it is an aspiring idea that will reconnect people with labor. we need to be on the side of aspiration. i've propose a major reform with a land value tax. those taxes stand in the way of young people from getting on in life. major must be on the side of aspiration. it defines my policy. >> we have some real advertisements now.
we will have are written question now. do not shot out the answer. we will find out a thin after break. what date is st. george's day? stay with us. we will find that in just a moment. welcome back. this is the labor leadership debate. we are asking the candidates a rather tough question. the question is what date is st. george's day? the answer is the 23rd of april which is also say -- also shakespeare's birthday. thank you for that. but go to our next question.
>> some of the support the graduate tax. they are already going to pay more income task. >> this is how you pay for higher education. is it a bad idea? >> there are many candidates to oppose the tuition fees at the time. the question is what do you do if you do not do that? if you look at the graduate tax, it is problematic. the money does that go directly back to universities. i personally will not rule out the idea of paying for higher education after general taxation. the graduate tax has its problems. >> thank you. >> if you look at tony blair's but, he actually says that we argued for a graduate tax and not tuition fees.
that was the target we had seven years ago. i was at university and i think if you expand the number of university places, it is fair to say that people who get the benefit should make an extra contribution, but the state to families where no one has gone to university for a mite too many people say they cannot save enough and they do not want their children starting out life in the debt. it is fair to say that if you get a job afterward to make a contribution as a much wider -- much better way to do it. >> there's a problem where people go to university and all of this personal debt. my worry is that it will begin to put people off of university. i remember graduating and some people went off to work for goldman sachs and some people went off to teach. one thing we do have to do is
talk more about young people and careers at university. they need a realistic hope about getting into a career. we must end this insidious culture of unpaid work, unpaid internships, unpaid work experience. it is hard for in people to make their way in the world today. we need to make it much easier to get the work experience and get on a life after university. [applause] >> said understand the anxiety expressed about a graduate tax. i did not agree with the general taxation. when i look at education, if you come to that conclusion, you have a choice. do you stick with the current system which means higher and higher debt with tuition fees or do you have the courage to change? a graduate tax is a fairer
system. it is based on a very simple principle which is the more you earn, the more you pay back for your education. i think fair minded british people would understand. >> i think taxes on graduates are the right way forward. a look at the detail and not just the slogan. the upfront fees have been abolished. you only pay back as a graduate. in the future, we need to make sure there's not a barrier. it is a good thing. there has been a 20% increase in the number of kids from poor families going into higher education and the current system. we should always look at how we make the system fairer? >> what is the answer? >> we have the review going on at the moment. there are a number of ways to make the system more fair. your question is, be careful of the system or you end up with people doing two years degrees
and subsidizing. that is not fair either. >> he have to make sure the details are right. the problem is when you look at the system and that the universities are saying they do not have enough money, high tuition fees will be in the market. >> no one is arguing that. >> the graduate tax says 250 steve on the. the brownish hue is looking at people with higher incomes to pay a fairer income. i think we should look carefully at the details. we raise money for higher education. >> while this is a very important debate, it is about time that the labor party started talking more about young people who are not going to go to university. [applause] >> we should be talking about their life chances, their career progression, apprenticeships for
there in the public sector. i did not think we should address this by talking -- i think we should start this conversation by talking about that i bit more. >> in schools, we tried to drive the number of repress ships in the public service. it to come back to the actor a question about graduated track tuition fees, is important to hear what people say. i'm afraid the reality is people saying what is labor making it harder for kids to go to university? they seem the idea of taking on a upfront debt. you are out of touch. >> the final candidate question. >> you are a relatively young man. [laughter]
you have all had tremendous careers at the heart of the new labor project. the policies, but what attributes of new labor do you most regret and why did he not say anything at the time? >> it is too top down. that is the problem. politics is about redistributing power in our country to people have control over their own lives. me to make sure we are a party that practice is what we preach about standing together. when tony interfered with the selection of candidates in london and in wales, it was part of a culture that said it needed to be existed that way. i believe in a bottoms up
politics. >> i think the thing i'm most regret is new labor became like old labor. it became conservative. it became stuck in the pond. if you think about low pay and a civil liberties, for a policy, the way is that it went back to old ideas. unless we change and move on from those old ideas, we will not win back power. >> to go back to any's question, it is not enough to talk about change and about these, but it is about be incredible. the labor did that in the 1997, but we lost our way in the second term. the attitude argument that said [inaudible] we give the of russian that public-sector work as a problem. there was an interview in "the guardian," and tony blair was
furious with me for doing that. i was willing to speak up on some of these issues. in the end, the loyal thing to do, sometimes, is to [inaudible] >> i think it goes straight from university to a career in politics. that gave me a different perspective on new labor. it was formed out of the distrust of their own grass roots, ordinary room -- ordinary members and trade unionists. it had to have a top-down, controlling, london-centered style to politics. going forward, we need to change that. we need to break the political elite that has a grip on labor. that is my kind of politics. no more parish a candidate. but the value where we came from and are trade union partners. [applause] >> response on the question about what you think a new labor did right?
>> i know what labor union did right. we have a hospitals, trains. i have been here for 13 years. people should have appreciated and valued that were incredibly cynical. it was things like the top down approach and the war in iraq which led to the incursion of solutions. they could not see when we did with our investment. >> thank you very much indeed. we are trying to a close. we will have two questions before the final break. how much does it cost to buy a single lottery ticket? what is the first line of the second burst of "the red flag"? not the chorus, but the first line of the second of verse.
we will find out how familiar they are with "the red flag." welcome back to the sky news labor leadership debate. we have been asking yarkand its general knowledge questions. the cost debate euro million ticket is two pounds. anyone know the first line of the second verse? [unintelligible] >> look round the frenchman ♪ [laughter] [applause]
2 out of 5, milliband 2 out of 5, 3 out of 5, as does andy burnham. congratulations. moving on now to some quick drop questions. this is a difficult question given the front page of the sunday telegraph. they say blair and brown betrayed our troops in iraq and afghanistan. did they, david? >> it pains me this. there are people in this country who have lost sons and daughters in afghanistan and iraq. that is torture enough for anyone to live with, but then to be told it could all have been easier and better is just not true.
we have armed forces fighting in some of the most dangerous parts of the world with the best equipment they have ever had. the truth is is good we are in a coalition and that there are 43 countries there. it is good we are not having to provide everything. we should be part of a coalition. it is important that people said that a strong message that we are committing their troops in the most dangerous circumstances. they are getting incredible support from our country but also from their own -- let's have a debate about the right judgments and stop blaming the some individual action. >> i think this is a misplaced criticism. i thought tony blair when he was making some of these difficult decisions and more so gordon brown. i saw a real agonizing decisions and always questioning about what they were doing. could they do more?
i remember them giving full support for the military equipment. it is really not fair to make criticism. both men knew the obligations to the young people they had sent to the front line in iraq and afghanistan. >> but of the mistakes were made there, tony blair agonize very hard about the decision. we have troops serving there in the moment that are doing a heroic job. our job for future government is to always make sure it is the right mission and it is being carried out properly. the language of the trail is frankly reprehensible. start with the facts. and in the 10 years after 1997, defense spending went up and in the 10 years before 1997, it went down by almost 13%.
the equipment was there, but i think he moved in an unseemly way from being a military leader to being an adviser to david cameron. [applause] >> i agree with ed. on iraq, everyone knows i have been against the attack. we got trapped in a war. no army has won a war there for two centuries. we have to let the u.n. the peacekeeping. we have to come all these years later, bring our troops home. >> ok. thank you very much indeed. time now for the closing statements from our candidates,
each of whom wants to lead the labor party. they have 20 seconds each of why you should vote for them starting with andy burnham. >> labor is in the grip of a political elite. as we go into the final stages of this race, i am fighting with everything i have got because i am fighting for a different kind of a labor party, a labor party that trusts its members, that values the council more constructively with the trade union partners. i do not have the support of the media. i want your support to rebuild labor. as the people's party. [applause] >> diane. >> on the big issues that destroyed politics, i was right and might upon its were wrong.
i have spent 18 years as a single mother. i have a little more experience with the real world. if you say i did not look like a labor leader, i say to you that in an increasingly globalized international world that this may be what a labor union leader looks like. [applause] >> our challenge in this leadership campaign is not to the final battles. i know what i am against and i know what i am for, a economy with the redistribution of power in britain and a different kind of labour party. that is why i am the unity candid in the selection with support from all across the country. i think i can beat david cameron. with your support. [applause]
>> there has been a lot of debate in this election about choosing between these candidates. i had a meeting last week and someone said to me this is all very well, shouldn't we have someone that is a bit more appealing to the media. i will stand up to david cameron. that is what i have done. [applause] >> you have to have the courage to change in the selection and move on from new labor. this is economy that works properly. we need to break down all the barriers to aspiration including some we have put their by tuition fees. i am the candidate who can best turn the page for labor. i'm not the candidate of the new labor. i am the labor can change labor,
when black people, and win back our for our party. [applause] >> thank you, ad, and thank you to all of our liberal leadership candidates. in 20 days there will be an announcement of new the new labor leader is. we will be following that on sky news. do stay with us. think of to the open center here in norwich for being the host for this very debate. [applause] >> wednesday on c-span, prime minister's questions return with british prime minister david camera. he takes questions from the house of commons live on 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2.
later today, live on c-span, president obama marks labor day with an address at an afl-cio events in milwaukee. live coverage begins at about 3:10 p.m. eastern here on c- span. congress returns from break next week. here is a look at some of our top -- prime time programming right after obama's speech tonight. watch town hall meetings with republican senator tom coburn and a vermont independent senator who both talk about health care. >> i believe the plan is for this plan to fail. as a matter of fact, i know this plan will fail. health insurance will be way too high. you will create what is called the adverse selection. anyone young who is held the committee will pay the fine in 2014 rather than spend $7,000 or $9,000 on health insurance. if you get sick, they have to cover you. it does not rise to $800 for a
fine until 2016. what will happen? the healthy young people will not be in the insurance pool. what will happen to the people were 40 who are sick? what will happen to the cost of their insurance? that is why i think they have designed to fail. ultimately they would like to revert and able to say we need a government-run, government- mandated, government-controlled, single payer health care system. >> in my view, if we are serious about having a cost-effective, high-quality health care system which guarantees health care for every man, woman, and child, the way to go is a medicare for all single payer system. if for what leads the country, you are absolutely right that we will be of diluted -- diluged with a lobbyist money. all 600,000 of us, if we can show that in medicare-four, all
system works, then new york state is not far behind than california. the rest of the country will come. >> we sure you both of these in the entirety of these speeches here on c-span. >> and now, a discussion on improving education. we hear remarks from children's on president and harvard economics professors. he had been president for the children zone which runs a charter schools and provides parenting and health services for at risk families or 20 years. but they spoke at the aspen institute ideas constitute for 30 minutes.
>> let me get us started. i know everyone here understands the entrance of education. but me give you a few facts he might not know. if you just look at racial equality in america, something i am interested in, blacks earn about 39% last, full-time workers, than whites. if you look at things like incarceration, two times more likely to be incarcerated on any given day. if you look at health, life expectancy, a six year difference in life expectancy between different racial groups. i do not want to proceed because it is too early in the day. here is the wonderful thing about it. if you just look at eighth great test scores, just eight grade test scores, that 39% difference in wages goes down to about 10%. the doubling of incarceration
goes down. the six years in life expected to go down to two years. it will not get rid of all the social ills we have in america, of course, but if there was one bullet from education certainly would be it. that is what got me interested in education. the issue, as you know, is we have not been able to close the racial achievement gap. it does not exist when kids are nine months old, but the trajectory of black and white children quickly diverge after that. by the time kids are 13, there is in one standard deviation difference between racial groups in terms of how well they can do math and they can read. if you look at places like washington, d.c., 4.5% can read at grade level, according to the national association of
education progress. in detroit, 3%. i am not making this up. 3%. i got involved in education and got depressed like everyone else. i heard a lot about the sky. people said that jeff is so amazing. he is so wonderful. and you just have to be just. he gave me his data. i told them i would tell everyone if he was not working. >> he did say that. >> i care about kids much more than i care about you, because we just met. [laughter] i have a good effect on people. ibm acquired taste. -- i am an acquired taste. i do not know how he does it, but in three short years from the kids came in to his sixth grade, he erased the racial
achievement gap in three years. kids would come in and read that a second or third grade level in the sixth grade, by the time they were in the eighth grade, he had erased the achievement gap with other racial groups in new york city. he did very something similar for english and language arts. for kids younger, they are passing the average kids in new york city when he gets them younger. i have no idea how he does it, but i guess today he will tell us a little bit about what is going on. >> thank you. i was introduced to roland and they told me that he was a boy genius -- actually, wait. rowland told me that. [laughter] the thing that i found intriguing was they said roland
was searching for the truth and he did not care where that lead. all of the politically correct stuff, he was just looking for the truth. he did come up to me say, "i hope your stuff is true and i will tell the truth no matter what it finds." i told him if it did not work, that i wanted him to tell me. i have been looking at this achievement gap literally my whole life. when i was in elementary school in the 1950's, people did not pretend that all kids were learned. you were trapped. this started in the about the second grade. you went to 2-1 or 2-2 and we all knew what it meant. went to where they're coming you stayed there. it would move one or two kids per year. it just stayed like that.
i was amazed that they could be so wrong. i have an older brother and this is where the issues of education. people thought i was smart because i answered the question you asked me immediately. right? my brother used to think about it. people thought he was slow, right? i am being honest. you ask again a question and he thinks. they put him in 6-5 because he is slow. he is a nuclear engineer today. [laughter] that is true, but that is despite what the teachers believe about him. in the seventh grade, we went from a special progress class to 7-22. if you were in 7-5, there was
already doubt you would graduate high school. 7-18, 7-20? the majority of children were in those class's. somewhere they found out that was a bad thing for kids, at least to tell them, right? we changed the data even though we do exactly the same thing. i did not want to do schools. when i came in to do this, we did all the other support and services but i always felt the answer was to reform public schools. after doing everything, i could not give the schools in my zone to the said to me. i would go in and say that if they got in early ahmed and they told me that i did not know what it was like to run a school in harlem. i would to the chancellor and told him i wanted to do a management where we manage schools together.
you get 50% and i get 50%. he started laughing at me, right? he said, jeff, by the time to get the legislation passed we will both be old and retired. do a charter school. i did not want to. doing schools is no fun. there was no other way for me to answer the question when people said i did not know how hard it was or why it was impossible because i did not run schools. i would love to say that i was a genius in figuring out how to close this achievement gap. believe me. if i was, i would have it. did it to you, my closest friends. -- i would have told it to you, my closest friends. the sad thing is that what we did, in my opinion, was so simple that when i think of the decades of kids, i am 58 and
there have been students failing since i was a kid for 50 have -- for 50, 60 years. and i think of the damage done to children. we thought of kids were behind that they probably need a longer day. i call it the physics of education. it is not like all the middle class kids thinking we would wait here for them to qassam. -- catch up. have you ever learned something in school and think, i will never use this? there is a train in denver at 7:00 a.m. in the morning leaving and another one left at 12:00 p.m. and both trains are traveling 30 miles per hour, where will the train be?
the physics of the work in education. how do i know 70% of my kids are two years behind? in the same school year, the same amount of time, i will solve the equation. you know what the answer is all over america? they fire the superintendent. if you look to the superintendent, but their job life expectancy is about 18 months. i thought, because i'm from new york city, that is the center of the world. when we fired them in new york city that it would be the end of their career. nope. . from new york to pittsburgh to florida. the same people are still in the business. the problem is that we do not talk about this issue. how much time does it take to catch a kid out? i ask you this question.
you have a kid who is one year behind in math. what do you do? you get a tutor. this is not rocket science that we figure this out. why will schools not do this? the other issue was we decided that some teachers, and this will get me in trouble. some teachers cannot teach. [laughter] i know, that is radical. [applause] people hate me all over america for saying it. and is a radical thought. my oldest son who is a lawyer called me up and said, "dad, all of my friends are mad at you." why? because you said we should send the lousy teachers to the upper middle-class neighborhoods. [laughter] all of his friends are upper- middle-class. i said they did not the whole "correctly. i said if we cannot fire them
that we should send them to the upper middle class. those kids can afford a year of a lousy teacher. poor kids cannot afford it. by do we do that to them? this issue of, do you hold yourself accountable? if the kids do not learn, and this is a given, single parents are a given, poverty is a given , crime, substance abuse, dysfunctional family. all of these are givens. i say do you know this community? you say yes. crime, drugs. can you educate children to buy that? yes. i do not want to hear anything in four months when you come in and i say look up the scores. wait. we had this discussion. you said you knew about the
community, right? if you allow excuses in this business, you will fail. there was a science designed around why it you cannot educate the kids. here is the simple thing. if you fire everybody who does not succeed, you either end up with no one working for you or a program that works, right? we end up with a program that works. everyone understands failure is not an option. what happens if you fail in your job? you have a job where you can fail and take three months of? i know i did not do a good job, but i'm not come back until september, right? it is crazy. only in education can you have those kinds of things. our work, roland, are in small charter schools. can we reform public education?
in the same things we learned in charter schools and the only person i know who is attempting to do that in america is roland. i thought he was smarter than this. he decided not to be a professor at harvard but now take over schools and do what no one else had been able to do. you may want to say something about that. >> that is exactly what we are doing, trying to figure out how to take programs like the harlem children's zone, yes, aspire, and take them to scale in a traditional public schools. that is hard. i told jeff's wife, what i would really like to do is take jeff down to size to we could transport him around. >> that boy got problems.
>> when i first that involved in education, when i realized education was important for those social ills, i wanted to get involved. the craziest thing about education to me, you said a lot of it, is frankly the lack of rigor we hold ourselves to win a try to figure out what is working and what is not. to show you how nerdy i am, i'm a ph.d. in economics and my undergrad was in math. i got involved in education after i heard the cardiac test. have you heard of this? i never heard of it until i got involved in education. i went around to all of the schools and i would say this is an interesting after-school program. they say it would be really working. i ask them how they know. they say, "we can feel it in our
hearts." [laughter] that might be all right for your children, but for my 1 some numbers. do you imagine going to a doctor and they say here are some pills, i think they work. in education, that is okay. we created a lab and we wanted to put signs in education. we won this pilot program to rigorously measure. after we met jeff, we decided we did not want to do it the same anymore. which have two examples, you basically have the proof. other's, s work and with a series of examples. the question is, how can we boiled down these wonderful things going on in the charter schools and try to figure how to scale them in public schools?
we have started down that path. jeff is intimately involved. he has been an adviser on this project since day one. we started videotaping people in schools in successful and not so successful charters. some are great and others should be closed. we wanted to look at the variants, if you will, in charter success and figure out if there are things that could predict this success, lager school this, how to use data to drive instruction. the preliminary evidence is there are four or five things that come out of this that can predict a lot of the success in charters. one is more time in school. jeff's kids spend a whole lot of time in school. when i visited his elementary school until the principle to buy me lunch. he asked me why? i said if you did not, i would tell the kindergartners they did
not spend as much time in school in other schools. more time in school is important. the second thing is human capital. been getting great teachers in the classroom. the third thing is how he uses data to drive instruction. assessing kids every three weeks or so with soft touch assessment, breaking assessments down by skills so a child may not understand of linear equations with one. you just go and go and we give you a test in march, get results in june, and then school is out, right? frequent assessments, a low- tech, using data, and make sure kids mastery. how do differentiate
instruction? some people do it because they have a nominal teachers. have you ever seen a phenomenal teacher? it is a work of art. they are amazing. they say, "eyes on me." and they can teach five different levels in the classroom and everyone is on task. that is what, 1% or 2% of teachers? the harlem children zones gould's use other ways to differentiate. the last are the wraparound services that just gives and other types of investments in culture and expectations. the culture of expectations really have to be based in everything the school does. tois not like the 1980's some time think about culture.
it has to be imbedded in every single thing. we found from the charters that these are correlated with achievement. i think the next step is to try to translate that in public schools. we are taking 20 public schools, since i am maynard they have been randomly chosen, in larger cities. we are taking these five things within the act of public schools. lengthen the school day. school now starts at 7:30 a.m. and did that for 30 p.m. . half days on saturdays. we have dated written instruction. we have tutors. every kid in the school will have a time where there is 211 tutoring to be able to differentiate instruction. for those who do not to order, we will double those them if they are behind a grade level. the time will be more effective in schools. we are working hard to find
devices and i heard them talk and they have no choice but to innovate. just had a black ferry, right? it you would just be toast in almost any other place except for innovation. in education, everybody parles on to say -- even if it does not work we should be trying something. in the end, we do know that these kids can learn. we just have to be smart about figuring out the answers. i think we are at the forefront of a movement in this country which says something very simple. if children do not learn, it is our fault. it is not the children's fault, not the family's fault, not the community's fault. it is those of us in the business. we have got to be smarter about doing our job. when you ask people what does it take, right, to educate a child, you do not want the answer
smarter kids. because people really believe this. and then say to me, if we were down on 96 street, we would be able to do that too. what is that saying? somehow the kids down there are different than what we have right here. i know we have only two minutes. he gave me the sign. it was like a black power thing. do not get that wrong. [laughter] here is what i think that we have to do as a nation. we have to decide that education is a civil right, that it really is a civil rights. everyone in this country deserves an opportunity to get an education and those of us in the field -- [applause]
you have to hold us accountable for that. >> i think they absolutely have the right not only to an education, but to be educated. and we also have to get rid of the excuses. well, we cannot educate this person because they come from poverty, or their mother is not with them or their father is not with them, or whatever. it is the parents -- i hear that all the time. people say, i do not have any excuses, rowland, but have you seen their parents? and i tell them, look, they are the best parents they have got. they are not hiding the good ones at home. [laughter] [applause] we will home school you. you go to school. [laughter] we will not only have to decide, but get a little upset about it. if we put these things together,
the things that are going on in charter schools, which are the biggest development in education in the last 50 years, and we get serious about our methods and say, if it is good enough for the medical full, it is good enough for our children, i have zero doubt that if we come back in five to 10 years we will have solved this problem. >> i could not agree with roland more. let me say three things i think people get confused with. rowland and i both understand how difficult and wondrous teaching is. this is not an anti teacher issue. this just says we need to have teachers prepared and capable and committed to doing their jobs. that is the first thing. the second thing is this is not about charters vs no charters. we want grade schools for all- american kids and we just think that charters allow more innovation. but public schools, in any other
business, public schools would be looking and say, if they have an ipad, then we are going to get one better. instead they are like my take the ipad and let's get rid of that thing, right? we are not against public schools. this is not an anti-public school grants. this is that we all have to get on top of our jobs. and the third thing is we ought to remove the people whose job it is to keep education from changing. [applause] there are jobs in making sure that nothing changes, and that has to be eliminated. by the way, we think that roland and i can do all we can on this issue. rowland will be doing it a lot of them i will. in the end, if you all do not raise a stink about this, everything we do is not going to matter. let's all do this together and thank you all very much. [applause]
[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> it is my great pleasure to introduce two pulitzer prize- winning journalist in one family, nicholas kristoff and wudunn d done -- cheryl wootto to discuss their latest book. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much. we are really delighted to be here. for those of you that saw the program and were expecting only meet, indeed, you have twice as much as you might have expected.
cheryl was able to fly in as well. we are thrilled that aspin has brought in this woman and girls to read -- that astin has brought in this woman and girls thread. we are going to do this a little bit differently. we are going to stand up and partly that is because we just came back from the middle east and so, we are nine hours apart. this is actually a session where people are at risk of falling asleep not only in the audience, but actually come up here as well. [laughter] we figure this will keep some adrenalin going. it is obviously unusual for a maritime columnist to write so much about women and little girls. let me tell you how that came to pass. it is when cheryl and i were correspondents in china and we began to look at what happened when you began to see investment in women and girls around the
country, and in the killer, for example, there was one time we were out in hu bai province. has anyone been there? i am actually surprise. it is in the middle of the country. it was a very rural school and the brightest kid in that school, a little girl, had to drop out because her parents did not want to pay $13 in school fees. essentially, they thought, we might want to pay school fees for a group -- for a boy, but not for a girl. so many incredibly bright girls were having to drop out. we used that little girl's picture on the front page of the "new york times" and maybe you can imagine what happened next. because she had to drop out for $13, we were then dive boost --
a riverbend delusion with almost day -- we were then dilutio deluged with envelopes from readers. "new york times" readers are incredibly generous in small amounts. [laughter] we took all that money down and worked out a deal with the principle whereby those girls would be able to stay in school as long as they could do the work without paying extra school fees. for the first time in this community, your academic achievement would not be a function of your chromosomes, but your intellectual capacity. those girls were thrilled. we decided to call of the donor of the $10,000 to give him a report. we called him up. he seemed surprised that we were making this call and we set out generous he had been and how --
and what eighth transformative change he had brought and he was even more surprised. we would say -- and we said, you could just not believe how far $10,000 will go in rural china and there was a bit of a gas and he said, but i did not send $10,000. i send $100. then it was our turn to gas. [laughter] as trained -- i sent $100. then it was our turn to gas. [laughter] as trained investigators, there was a problem here. it turns out he had only wired $100, but there was a problem with the bank. maybe it was the same bank that was doing subprime mortgages. [laughter] would not know what to do. we could not imagine going back to that school and telling all of these roles they would have to drop out after all. i'm not really proud of what i did next.
i call of the chief spokesman for the bank -- [laughter] you're pretty sharp. we've laid it out, too, and explain how they had made this error. these girls were counting on the extra 9900 to finish their education. -- $9,900 to finish their education. then we explained the following article we were writing. [laughter] well, we asked, are you, indeed, going to try to get that $9,900 back and forth all of these girls out of school, on the record? he did not miss a beat. on the record -- he said, on the record, we would be delighted to make the donation of the difference.
what we had there was a fascinating natural experiment in what happens when you have this one time misogynist investment in gross communities in a way that does not happen in the others around there. -- in girls community in a way that does not happen in the others around there. we have been able to go back and look at what happened in that village compared to the others. if that one little girl became the first person in her family to graduate from elementary school, middle school and high school and then burn an accounting degree -- and then earned an accounting degree. she got a job as an accountant and began sending money back to support her community. after working as an accountant for a number of years she went and started her own business. so many other girls bear who otherwise would have been hurting goats or working in the rice -- girls there who otherwise would have been goats or working in
the rice paddies and of of getting jobs and getting back to the village. make no mistake a lot throughout the province people are much better educated and much better off than they were. but this village has surpassed all the others because of that one time bank error. our message is not, in fact, that we want to have more bank errors. but that you do begin to see this kind of a virtuous cycle unfolds when you invest in girls. it was these kinds of experiences that led cheryl and need to look into these kinds of issues and ultimately, that process let us to "half the sky ." there are two arguments that we
make. the first is that just as a central moral challenge in the 19th century was slavery and the fundamental moral to challenge in the 20th century was totalitarianism, in this century, the paramount moral challenge will be gender inequity and around the globe. [applause] normally, we encounter some kind of skeptical glances at that point, but you guys are all well indoctrinated. i think a lot of people do, though, think that it is hyperbole and it is not. it really is, what we believe, to be the central moral challenge. to explain why, let me turn the tables on you and ask you a question. are there more males or females in the world today? let's have a little hole. if you think -- let's have a little poll.
if you think there are more males in the world today can you raise your hand? and if you think there are more females can you raise your hand? i'm afraid the latter group is wrong. the first group is right. there are more males in the united states and europe -- i'm sorry, there are more females in the united states and in europe. if given equal access to food and health care, women live longer. in an equitable world, women -- there would be more women. anut this is not equitable world and gender discrimination is often a matter of life and death and women are discriminated against to death. in india for example, in the first years of life boys and girls have similar mortality rates because they depend on the sustenance of the breast. but from age 1 to 5, girls are
50% more likely to die than boys because they depend on their parents, including their mothers, who do have a preference. worldwide, there are between 6100 10 million women who are missing from the planet. -- between 60 and 110 million women who are missing from the planet. if you think about that number, that means in the last 50 years, there have been more people discriminated against on the basis of their gender to the point of death and all the people killed on all the battlefields of all the wars of the 20th century. in any one decade, more girls are discriminated against to get that all the people who died in all the genocides of the 20th century. the scale is truly astonishing. and that is why we argue that it is a central moral challenge of this century. but there is another theme and it is a little less grim.
putting aside the moral issues and terrible things that happen and what should be done, just on a purely practical level, if you want to address global poverty, social conflict, so many other problems around the world, then the most effective way to do that is to invest in girls, focus on women and development and to see the same kind of virtuous spiral on fold that happen in who they province -- in hu bai province. in other words, girls are not the problem. they are the solution. that is true for a few different reasons. one is, one of the central issues with party is excess population growth. -- with poverty is excess population growth. if you educate a boy he will, on average, have fewer children.
but it is a fairly modest effect. if you educate a girl, is a dramatic effect. one of the ways to affect fertility production is to educate girls. another reason to focus on women and girls has to do with what is kind of a dirty little secret of development. that is, frankly, a lot of the problems of global poverty are caused not only -- a lot of the suffering is caused not only by low incomes, but also by some really bad spending decisions and those are disproportionately by men. this research is utterly demoralizing to go through if you are a man, i must say. you want to pull out your checkbook and handed to your wife. which is something the wives usually agree with. but it looks as if among the families living below $2 per person per day, which is one of
the standard madrak in global poverty, -- one of the standard metrics in global poverty, $1 goes to a division. even though education is a great investment. -- 1% goes to education. even though education is a great investment. by contrast, they spend 20% on a combination of alcohol, tobacco, prostitution, sugary drinks like soft drinks and very extravagant vegetables. [laughter] like aspen. [laughter] let me just believe that last sentence if i ever want to be invited back. [laughter] if you could take four percentage points out of the top of all, tobacco, prostitution pool and put it in the education pool, you would have a
transformative effect on global poverty. one way of doing that is to give women more control over the purse strings. that could be educating them so they have more capacity to generate income. it could be giving them legal titles over property, over assets. it could be other mechanisms in the household that attempt to influence their spending and give them more influence over potential spending. and finally, the most basic reason may be before focusing on women and girls is, if you focus on women and girls around the world, then the greatest resources that they have are not the gold or diamond mines, but the female population. if we can help the country's figure out how to make better use of that resource, then it is transformative for those countries and the globe as a whole. now to talk about what that agenda might mean, let me
introduce the better half of of our sky, cheryl. [applause] >> i have the depressing part to talk about, so bear with me. i will let the sun set naturally. i will not said it earlier for you. basic -- basically, what is on the top of the agenda? we think it has to be sex trafficking. i do not know how many are familiar with this issue. it is really challenging, firstly, because we think the name, "sex trafficking" does not relate capture what is. let me tell you what happens, in general. a 13-year-old girl, a 10-year- old girl gets kidnapped, often taken away from her family. if she gets put into a brothel. she is forced to work there without any pay, long hours, and she often is not even said
properly because they do not want her to get fat. it is really to slavery. it is forced slavery, sex slavery. we understood this and we came to understand this more when we met someone by the name of long proff. she was captured when she was 13 and sent to a brothel. when she got pregnant twice, had an abortion twice, the bob faw owner wanted her to get back to work really quickly -- the brothel owner wanted her to get back to work with it quickly. the brothel owner, by the way, was a woman. if she felt terrible and could not get back to work, the on the fact that she did the job. when she resisted, the brothel owner gouge out her eye. it really has dire consequences in many cases. that phenomenon really shook us
up. how do you get, first, exposed to this phenomenon? we were living in tokyo and covering the region and we have heard about this the sex slavery going on in cambodia. nick made a trip down to cambodia and he spent an afternoon in the brothel, as a reporter, of course. [laughter] he was talking to a 14-year-old and a 15-year-old. and the 15-year-old was explaining that when she was captured her mother spent months afterwards looking all over the region for her. just a week before nick arrived at the brothel the mother found her daughter and they had a wonderful reunion, tearful joy, and then nick as the obvious question, well, why are
you still here? and she explained, the brothel owner told my mother that she had paid good money for me. if my mom wanted me back she would have to pay for me and she did not have the money, so she could not by me back. if so, she left. nick felt terrible. he knew he was going to leave the brothel with a front-page story, but that these two girls were probably going to end up staying in a brothel and dying of aids. the next time he went back -- he went back to report on this and he thought, i have to do this in a better way. if so, he thought of whom he could ask. he called up the "new york times" lawyer and he said, dave, does the "new york times" have a policy on buying human beings? [laughter] dave was very puzzled and said, no, the "new york times" does not have a policy on buying
human beings yet. [laughter] sure enough, and it went to cambodia and he bought two human beings. some of you may have read his stories about it. there were many ups and downs. he basically brought them -- bought them, got receipts for them, and he did try to move them from the broth all and bring them? internet -- brothel and bring them back into normal lives. it is not easy helping people, as some of you know. and the upshot is that although there were ups and downs, we were able to help them in the end. they are doing pretty ok. in fact, one of them is doing very well. [applause] the second item on the agenda is maternal mortality. i do not know how many of you
are familiar with maternal mortality, some of the issues there. basically, a woman dies every minute and a half or so some more of a world-somewhere around the world because of childbirth issues or problems in labor. that is almost three or four jets full of women dying every single day. it is remarkable how many people are dying. that is a dramatic improvement over what it was in the previous five years, which used to be a woman dying every minute. we have made a lot of progress. but it is still a challenge. why is it a challenge? it is because women in much of the developing world have three strikes against them. therefore, rural, and female. -- they are poor, rural and female.
that means childbirth here in the west is a glorious thing. in niger, one in seven women can expect to die in childbirth during her lifetime. it is a real challenge and for each woman who does die, there are 20 to survive, but -- 20 who survive, but are injured in the process of bearing a child. one of the most devastating injuries is called fistula. how many of you have heard of that? oh, good, good. you know how devastating an injury is. basically, you are incontinent. let me tell you the story above mahabuba. she was 13 years old at the start of the story in ethiopia. she was married against her will.
she got pregnant. then she ran away to have the baby on her own in the bush. she was 13 years old. her body was very immature. she had an obstructed labor and she ended up with the baby dying and her having a fistula. that meant that she basically could not control her waist. she was incontinent. if she stank. the villagers did not know what to do with her. they thought she was cursed. they decided to put her in a small hut at the edge of the village. they ripped off the doors so that the hyenas would get her at night. and that night there was a stick in the corner of a hut. she fought off those-as all night with that stick. and the next -- those hyenas' all night with that stick. and the next morning she knew there was a foreign missionary in the nearest village.
if she could get to him, she thought that she could get help. partly because the obstructed labor had damaged some of her nerves she really could not walk. so she crawled. again, to avoid the high yen as at night, the nearest village was 30 miles away -- to avoid the high enos at night -- the nearest village was 30 miles away, she would crawl up into high places at night. she got to the nearest village and was almost dead. the missionary open the door and knew exactly what had happened to her. he got her to the hospital and they stitched her up. it is a $350 operation, a very cheap operation, very affordable. not only as we know that this girl is a real survivor, m,ahabuba is an amazing
survivor, but she was also very clever. the nurses noticed this and decided to give her a few tasks and pretty soon they gave her in few more tasks and now she is a nurse at the hospital, saving thousands of lives of other women. really, paying back in droves what someone helped her out with just to keep her alive. she is part of the solution, not a problem. she is an example of that. her colleague, the same type of situation. she also suffered a fist july and was rushed to the hospital. it turns out -- a fistula and was rushed to the hospital. it turns out that she was not only clever, very agile with her fingers. if she started doing surgery's and became the top training surgeon for new doctors coming into the hospital and having to learn how to do fistula repairs.
she was totally illiterate. he was an illiterate trainer surgeon -- here was an illiterate trainer surgeon and after a few years of being totally embarrassed that she could not read or write, she enrolled yourself in school and vice i urge was at a third grade reading level. again, -- last i heard was at a third grade reading level. again, she is part of the solution to one of the problem. these are real challenges that the world faces and they have been a little depressing, but there are solutions. and we have heard a few of the solutions that we also face in this country -- education and economic opportunity. that is what it is, basically, jobs and education. that is what they need a broad a wet -- at that is what they need abroad as well. if you give a woman a chance to have a livelihood, stand on her
own 2 feet, have a role in society, and to contribute to the household economics, to the county and to ultimately to the gross national product, which is so key for women in this part of the world. let me tell you the story of saima. she was able to transform her family through economic opportunity. she is a woman who lives in a small village outside lahore in pakistan. she basically, was miserable -- her life was miserable because she was beaten every day by her husband, was not employed. he was kind of a gambler type, so he was not very employable and he would take his frustrations out on saima by beating her up. when she had her second daughter, again, they favor
sons, her mother-in-law turned to her and said, you know, you better get a second wife because i do not think saima is going to bear you a son. she was devastated. just at that time there was a micro lending group in the village and they gave saima a $65 loan. she could do embroidery and so she thought she would start a small embroidery business. it turns dark she was very good at it. she started importing and merchants kept asking for more and -- she started embroidering and merchants kept asking for and pretty soon it was more than she could produce. then she started asking women in the village to work with her. then she had 30 women in the village working with her and she had so much product to get to the marketplace that she needed someone to help her transport those goods. so, she hired her husband. now they are in business together.
he does the marketing and transportation distribution. she does the production and sourcing and they have transformed the village. the village now is really an embroidery village. everybody's standard of living has risen. saima now has a third daughter and all her girls are doing very well in school. they have special tutors. the oldest daughter is at the top of the class because she knows how important education is as well as economic opportunity. that brings me to education. you all know how important education is. it is not only important here, but around the world. it is important in the tiny village that you have never heard of where people make under $2 per day. larry summers, when he was chief economist of the world bank, said that it may well be that the highest return on the investment in the developing world is in girls' education. we can see how transformer to
education is, not only with daimanju, but in africa as well. beatrice is one example of how education transformed her family. beatrice, like daimanju, actually, she was worse off because at 9 years old she had never been to a single day of school. her parents said, why should we spend any money on school fees for beatrice because she is going to be spending her days letting water and working in the fields. a waste of money. beatrice was really heartbroken. if she really wanted to go to school. it just happened at that time there was a community church group in connecticut that made a donation to an organization based in arkansas called heifer international.
heifer to that their nation and sent two goats to africa. one of those go to ended up with beatrice's parents. the goat had twins and the twins started producing milk and the parents started selling the milk, turning it into cash. the cash started accumulating and finally, they said, we have enough money we can actually start to send beatrice to school. at 9 years old, beatrice was delighted. if she had to start in first grade with the 6-year-old, but that did not matter. if she was delighted to be there. she was at the top of her class and stayed at the top through elementary school, middle school, and then a high school she scored brilliantly on the national examinations. she became the first person in her village to get a scholarship to come to the united states. two years ago, she graduated from connecticut college.
[applause] and that go -- on the day of graduation, at her party, she said, the luckiest girl alive because of a goat. and that goat was $120. it does not take that much. and it was transformed to of. and you know something, she then got and internships in the summer -- she got an internship in the summer and she is doing graduate work in development because she wants to go back to her country and try to work on development. again, she is part of the solution, not a problem. women can really be the solution. it takes a village to turn them into the solution. this is a social problem that requires social change by both men and women working together. it is not just something --
change cannot be brought about just by women. we really do think that individuals can make a difference here, but we also want to give you a reality check. helping people is hard, and i'm sure a number of you have read a lot of criticism of u.s. aid projects, foreign aid projects. people cite the fact that a year later, water projects, water wells, half of them have failed. when we were in zimbabwe in march, we were touring a village and sure enough, as the village chief was trying to sing the praises of the village because he wanted to raise money for a secondary school, i noticed there was some construction in one part of the village and i asked what that was. he mumbled and walked away. then he said, it turns out it
was a failed irrigation project. and just a few yards away was a failed chicken coop project. all the chickens died one year, no one wants to put their chickens in that project anymore. it is true that it is not easy, but we actually look at this and say, do not for the baby out with the bathwater. let's applaud the fact that 50% of projects survive in these kinds of conditions. just like in the business world, continuous improvement and you learn from your mistakes. not only does it take foreign aid projects, but it also takes people, individuals helping individuals. in the same way that beatrice was helped by $120, individuals can help and make a great big difference. i think it is a parable that maybe some of you know. it is a hawaiian parable. it is the story of a boy walking on the beach -- of course, this
is hawaii -- and he is just covered in starfish. he picks up a starfish and throws one back into the ocean. the ethics of another and throws it back into the water. along comes -- he picks up another and throws it back into the water. along comes a man and says, boy, you're crazy. there are thousands of starfish on this beach. if you cannot possibly make a difference. the boy looks at him and picks of a starfish and throws it back into the water and says, it made a difference to that one. [laughter] but then the question is, why should you care? what is in it for you? i have two things to say to that. there are very few things in life -- research shows there are very few things in life once you have all of your material needs satisfied, which all of us here
in this room do, there are very few things in life that actually can elevate your level of happiness. it is very hard to change your set point for happen is, research shows. one of them is contributing to causes larger than yourself. then the question is -- and i will leave you with this anecdote -- is really why, why you should care. and the story is of an aid worker in darfur. she was very strong in working, helping the people there with their plight. if she saw things that no human being -- she saw things that no human being should see, and yet,
the entire time she was strong, she was steadfast, she never brought down. -- she never broke down. when she was back on vacation at christmas she was in her grandmother's back yard and she saw something that made her breakdown in tears. what was that? it was a bird feeder. it and she realized that -- and she realized that she had the great fortune of being born in a land where we take security for granted. where we not only feed, house ourselves, but at also provide for the wild birds so they do not go hungry in the winter. and she realized that with this great fortune comes great responsibility. so, like her, you, me, we all
have won the lottery of life. the question is, how do we discharge that responsibility? and so, here is the cause, join the movement. feel happier and help save the world. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> you are looking at a stage in milwaukee, a wisconsin at the side of a labor fest here. a little bit later today will be bring you live remarks from president obama there on the labor day afl-cio event. live coverage will be at about 3:10 p.m. eastern. if he will also be able to see the remarks again tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. while we wait for president obama's remarks, we will take a
look now at today's "washington journal" on august unemployment numbers. journal" continues. host: tara sinclair is here to talk about employment programs. the president is traveling to milwaukee, wisconsin, to make remarks for labor day. what do you expect he is going to say and what do you want to hear from the president's that sort of -- the president that gives you and the american people an understanding that he understand what the current employment situation is? guest: i think he will continue to and the size that the numbers were heard on friday were more positive than expected. the new number from the labor department suggesting the private sector is creating jobs -- not as much as they would like -- but jobs are being created in the private sector. i think he will continue on the path of at least hting toward
further economic stimulus that is hopefully going to create even more jobs. host: in the orange county register that have the lead story, a shi in jobs is on the horizon. future hiring will mainly benefit the highly skilled. does that mean that the folks who are not as highly skilled will be left behind the desk? guest: that is a pattern that has been going on for some time. the labor department came out with a report not to long ago where they actually showed that jobs for people with high school degree and below have not really seen employment growth since 1992. host: ok. so what is on the horizon? is it going to take more training and retraining for the unskilled workers or will they just rolled over? guest: i think we are going to be seeing a lot of changes in the structure of our economy in the next decade or so. part of that, hopefully we will continue to see an emphasis on college education with president
obama has been pushing for, seymour people go to college. but we might also see some of these green john's. growth in the service sector. were some of those might be the pes of jobs people can be trained on the jobs rather than the classroom. host: in "the philadelphia inquirer" is this headline. unemployment rose, but so the private-sector hiring. mcclatchy newspapers's kevin hall wrote -- exiting payrolls as the work was complete, the census workers. so, it sounds like they are not
ready to commit -- employers are not ready to commit fully right now but they are going to hire these folks part time to see how things work out and maybe later on in the fall or winter they will come back and say we will keep you on full time. guest: exactly. this is a really positive signal. it is a relatively small number but moving again and positive direction where you see firm start to hire temporary workers d also increasing over time. using their own workers to a greater extent. that easily isn indicator hiring will pick up in the future. host: talking to tara sinclair from george washington university, assistant economics professor. the conversation is about u.s. employment trends. if you want to give us a call -- our first call comes from richmond, virginia. randy on our line for
republicans. caller: i have a question -- or a common. -- comment. i wanted to give you a personal compliments on your last segment. you were ry professional -- not just cracking of about the planets alignments on september 50. host: thank you a lot. thank you for your questions or comments. caller: i saw on msnbc about the secretary of labor was talking about the large portion of money being invested in this high tech training. doing se investments there. i work in a very high tech field and i have beennemployed for over eight months. i have plenty of security. my question is, how do you think that will trace how those funds will help of the lower income,
or as you were saying, just high-school educated person in the workforce? i believe it would be a good step, but it will not help anything in the here and now to get any kind of education in the high-tech industry -- you at least need a four-year degree. guest: thais true. if you are looking in the high- tech industry in parcular, most of those jobto require a four-year agreed and that is where president obama's emphasis of getting more people into college and people later in life, is a good step in that direction. host: the next up is a middletown, new york, the line for independents. caller: my comment concerns the economic downturn in which i think business in general was the delighted to be able to cut their forces down.
something they ordinarily would not be able to do but they were able to do this, and now i think the future of employment is. -- bleak. i think you are going to see just highly skilled labor, you are going to see plenty of temporary hiring, agency, but i think the future of employment is bad. everybody is asking, why isn't business hiring? they are not hiring because they don't have to. they are still producing at a level they were producing prior the downturn, and now they have a 10% to 20% lower cost to do that, to perform that, which is a bonanza for shareholders and stockholders. i think it is going to take something -- i don't know what -- to force businesses to hire again because they really do not want to. host: that was david from middletown, new york. kind of tied into the question
we proposedarlier in this program about the president's call for a $100 billion tax credit. do you see this as pumping of the economy, getting busesses to hire workers and getting the economy worked -- moving again? guest: i think there are a number of aspects. we saw productively -- productivity grow, so firms were able to get more output out of even a smaller number of workers, which was good for the firms and stockholders. but we expect over the longer- term firms will want to produce even more stuff and they are going to want to hire more workers. with the tax credit, hopefully that will encourage them to produce more stuff up sooner. host: greenville, north carolina, on the line for democrats. welcome to "washington journal." caller: what i want to say is a lot of friends of mine that are in the area of economics and
what ever, -- whatever, were telling a story, all of the republicans are totally against this president. my heart goes out to president obama. they are criticizing him on how early heat gets up from sleep -- everything, anything. it is a crying shame hal all of this is coming out against the people -- the poor people and the middle-class people are being crushed to death. the republicans know this and they are having a hoo-haw and they have secret meetings and tea party. host: is there support for t
president's proposal among republicans on capitol hill or will they have to rely on just democratic support? is there a bipartisan line to walk down? guest: i cannot speak particularly on the partisan -- politics aspect, republicans are just looking at it from different directions than the democrats are. republicans are looking at a little more long-term strategy, focusing on getting businesses to hire and incentives to get businesseso hire, which might look from a democratic perspective as being about giving more high income people more money or lower taxes to, but from a republican perspective, it is about cutting taxes which will encourage firms to hire more workers. host: in "the philadelphia inquirer" on sunday they had a chart from the bureau of labor statistics that looked at jobs gained or lost last month. and health care, the change from
belli, numbers went up 28,000. professional business services, up 20,000. construction, 19,000. hospitality industry, 13,000. education, up almost 5000. but then in real estate, down 3000, retail bell up almost 5000. manufacturing down 27,000. and the government -- and this is primarily census workers 21,000. what do these numbers guest: some of those numbers are not at all surprising. we expect health care to keep growing, creating a largeumber of jobs. the disappointing number there is manufacturing. we were hoping to see continued growth, but the aut ino the street did not do as well last month as they were expecting -- the automobile industry did not
do as well as hope. host: are they the primary mover? guest: they are. caller: good morning. i believe that the republicans, the democrat party -- i don't know who for sure, the g-20 summit, decided years ago that the manufacturing country of the world would be china. they have regulated as other business, destroyed manufacturing in the u.s., and all these jobs will be nothing. they are taking people who were making $150,000, and leaving them on unemployment. if theyo create jobs, we will
all be flipping burgers at mcdonald's. everyo is divided. you have republican callers saying it is democrats, and vice versa. the problem is, we have democrats, rublicans who are corrupted. i do not see any real future in to we start manufacturing and maki things. host: thanks, greg. where do you see a potential for growth in manufacturing beyond automotives? if someone were trying to get into business and provide jobs, where is the best place to start looking? guest: it is a tough call. we will see growth in production at the high tech sectors. but it will be more on the design side compared to that actualroduction. as long as we still have to
cheaper products to be produced overseas, we get benefit from buying the cheaper products. it is a trade-off for not producing a here to being able to buy it cheaper. host: one of the colors concerned about the proposal by the president is that companies would use the tax credits for research and development here only to produc cheaper goods overseas. guest: that is actually a concern. the focus will probably be specifically written to create jobs here in the u.s., but there is such inter-dependence across the world now, that we will see some things begun here will also be produced abroad. host: new york, on the line for republicans. caller: this is a days.
i am a republican. -- this is dave. i think there are a lot of smart people out there. it is an easy decision -- corporate tax, tax for everyone, for the next six months lower its by 40%. everyone will start hiring. i don't know why they're making the decisions so hard, for the next 36 months, 40% -- you will see growth in every sector. host: anything to dave's logic? guest: it is an interesting proposal. it comes to the debate about what will stimulate the economy. will be tax cuts, government spending, or something directly from the private sector? and we just need to wait for the economy to adjust? all those have strong arguments. host: we're speaking with an
assistant onomics prossor at george washington university. she also teaches programs in the macro economics, and is the co- director of the research program on forecasting. i assume that this economic forecasting? guest: that is right, although we do like to talk to weather forecasters. host: charleston, south carolina, ike. caller: good labor date for you folks, i'm currently in a state of mourning for the state of labor in my country. i will start with a simple question and follow with comment. if businesses do not pay tax, and just pass it on to the consumer, while they constantly crying for tax cuts? if you look at the balance sheets, they have plenty of money on hand. as far as the state of labor, a person that haseen a lifelong construction worker, once his
manufacturing job got shipped out of country by unfair trade agreements, what good is it now when i go to construction sites and see employers breaking the law and hiring illegal immigrants to do the work? we have been decimated out here. i don't think you folks on the top, the people who sit in think tanks, and want to just talk about it like statistical anomalies -- y'all are just not getting the point. we are nearly broke, and desperate. we can debate all we want, but when it comes right down to it, we have to reverse these trade agreements and get control of our borders. we also have to start being american, buying american, and that will solve our problems. guest: back to his first point about the cash the firms are currently holding on the balance sheets. this is a really interesting
situation we are seeing with firms that seem to be doing rather well. the stock market is up, the firms have more cash and the balanc sheets then we have ever seen historically before. yet they're not going ahead in spending it, either to buy new equipment, or to hire workers. we are looking for the reason why, and how to encourage it to happen. one thing people suggest is they are waiting to see the economy is stable, but also if there will be new regulations, or new stimulus packages coming out. why spend money now if you might get matching dollars if you would if you months? -- if you wait a few months? host: the president said this tax credit was not a second stimulus package. how would you differentiate the two?
guest: it is tricky. any time the government either cuts taxes or increases spending, that is a stimulus package. but you can be more or less ecific. the more targeted, the more likely they will say it is a particular policy, not a general stimulus. host: columbus, ga., on the line for independents. caller: i have a question for your guest. i'm currently a senior in college in very skeptical of ability to get a job, even with criminal justice as my bachelor's degree. i see there is a high influx of over-skilled and old folks in the work force, and you folks can i get in. as far as the trend goes, when you have you folks between 16
and 24 who are outpaced by competitors being 65 and older in the lower paying jobs, how precisely are going to cope with a brain drain and skill will dip when those individuals retire? guest: that is an interesting question. it is the opposite of what we normally hear. normally we hear that competition is constantly entering for the older workers who originally paid more based on their experience. every year we have new college graduates with fresh turning and energy coming in it. we are normally concerned about the her direction. at this point, we're still looking at seeing the benefit from having the older workers stay in the labor force longer. we look at college graduates
and how well they're doi in the market, they're still doing better than any other groups. host: west bloomfield, mich., on the line for republicans. caller: president obama is trying to get a capital gains tax relief for small businesses. tell me if i'm wrong. you only have a capital gain if you sell somethi like real- estate or stock. most businesses do not have capital gains. they have gains. how can you straighten that discrepancy for me? guest: that when i'm not sure about. it is more of a finance question. new orleans,o to louisiana, on the line r democrats. caller: good morning.
i have noticed that whenever you have guests on, it has become apparent that these are republicans because they always seem to give you the final answer from republicans point of view. the question is this. when not have a flat tax? everyone pays taxes everyone is complaining. you pay taxes every day, every time you buy something. 90% of those complaining about e taxes probably do not even make $12,000 per year, but everyone is bashing the president because he is doing everything he can to help all america. it is not about republicans or democrats. he has been criticized for everythi. host: tara sinclair. guest: that is a really interesting point because you bring a first of all, the concern about the bias of the guest, yet the same time you
suggest a flat tax which tends to lean more towards republican policies. i think the flat tax is not politically feasible right now, but it keeps coming back into the discussion. i think we will seek new proposals about new tax formats as we go forward. host: you say that is not politically feasible right now, but do you see either now or sometime in the future that a flat tax would be economically feasible? guest: i do think there are some interesting aspects to it. one, about being able to tax when people consume something, choo to buy something, rather than taxing their labor and work. it might stop distorting the labor market is so much. host: earlier we were talking about the disparity between the
young and old. we have numbers from the u.s. labor department. for 16 and over the total unemployment for last month was 9.6%. in december 2007, it was only 5%. for dolmen 20 and over the unemployment rate was 9.8% back -- for adult007 men. teenager the unemployment rate is 26.3%. 2007, december, 16.9%. doou see anything on the horizon changing that? wanting to he someone you can pay less money? for now because of those situations, is it that employers
can choe, and afford to spend less and still get more experience with older workers? >> wheaten now technology, wisconsin are president obama is not to talk about the economy and labor issues. he is speaking at a the "labor fast" organized by the milwaukee area labor council of the afl- cio. this is live coverage on c-span. [applause] >> hello, milwaukee. [applause]
hello, milwaukee. [applause] thank you. it is good to be back in milwaukee. it is good to be back. i'm almost home. i'd is hot on the '94 and i am home. take all the way to the south side. it is good to be here on such a beautiful day. [applause] happy labor day, everybody. i want to say thank you to the milwaukee labour council and all my brothers and sisters in the
afl-cio for inviting me to spend the stay with you. [applause] a data belongs to the working men and women of america. -- a day that belongs to the working men and women of america. i want to acknowledge president -- a man who knows a strong economy needs a strong labor movement. [applause] thank you to the president of the wisconsin afl-cio, your area labour council secretary- treasurer -- i hear that it is her birthday tomorrow. [applause] happy birthday, she left.
i am proud to be here with our secretary of labor, a daughter of union members, hilda solis, and our secretary of transportation, ray lahood is in the house. i want everybody to give it up for people who are at the forefront of every fight for wisconsin's working men and women, senator herb kohl, -- yourswoman plan mo outstanding mayor and i believe soon-to-be outstanding governor. [applause]
i know you have a great senator, russ feingold, he was here earlier, standing with you and your families, just like he always has. he is at his home town labor day parade. it is good to be back. this is not my first time at labour fest. some of you remember i stood here with you to years ago when i was still a candidate for this office. during that campaign, we talked about how, for years, the values of hard work and responsibility that have built this country had been given short shrift. how it was slowly hollowing out our middle-class. everybody who has a chair, set down, because everybody is
hollering. sit-down. i'm going to be talking for a while. everybody, said. [applause] -- everybody ,sit. you have a lot of hard-working people here. you deserve to sit down for a day. you have been on your feet all year, working hard. but two years ago, we talked about some on wall street who were taking reckless risks, cutting corners to turn huge profits while working americans were fighting harder and harder just to stay afloat. we talked about how things were all too often stacked in favor of special interests and against the interest of working americans. what we knew even then was that these years would be some of the most difficult in our history. two weeks later, two weeks
after i spoke here, the bottom fell out of the economy. middle-class families sublease on themselves swept up in the worst recession of our lifetime. the problems facing working families, they are nothing new. but there are more serious than ever. that makes our cause more urgent than ever. for generations, it was the great american working class, the great american middle-class that made our economy the envy of the world. it has got to be that way again. [applause] milwaukee, it was folks like you that built this city. it was folks like you that built the state. it was folks like you that forged the middle-class all across the nation. it was working men and women who
made the 20th-century the american century. it was the labor movement that helped secure some much of what we take for granted today. the 40-hour workweek, the minimum wage, family leave, health-insurance, social security, medicare, retirement plans, the cornerstone of the middle-class security all bear the union label. [applause] it was the greatest generation that built america and to the greatest force of prosperity, opportunity and freedom the world has ever known. americans like my grandfather who went off to war just boys and returned home as men. then they traded in one uniform
and set of responsibilities for another. americans like my grandmother who rolled up her sleeves and worked in a factory on the home front. when the war was over, they studied under the gi bill and they bought a home under the fha and they raised families supported by good jobs that pay good wages with good benefits. it was through my grandparents experience that i was brought up to believe that anything is possible in america. [applause] but, milwaukee, they also knew the feeling when opportunity is pulled out from under you. they grew up during the depression, so they tell me about seeing their fathers or their uncles losing jobs, how it was not just the loss of a paycheck that hurts so bad.
it was the blow to their dignity. their sense of self-worth. a lot of us have seen people have been changed after a long bout of unemployment. it can wear you down, even if you have a strong spirit. if you are of work for a long time, it can wear you down. my grandparents taught me early on that a job is about more than just a paycheck. the paycheck is important, but a job is about waking up every day with a sense of purpose and going to bed at night feeling like you have handled your responsibilities. [applause] it is about meeting or responsibilities to yourself, your family and your community. i carry that lesson with me all those years ago when i got my start fighting for men and women on the south side of chicago
after their local steel plant shutdown. i carry that lesson with me through my time as a state senator and u.s. senator and i carry that lesson with me today. [applause] i know, i know that there are folks here in this audience folks right here in milwaukee and all across america who are going through these kinds of struggles. 8 million americans lost their jobs in this recession. even though we have had eight straight months of private sector job growth, the new jobs have not been coming fast enough. here is the honest truth, the plain truth. there is no silver bullet, there is no quick fix to these problems. i knew when i was running for
office, and i certainly knew by the time i was sworn in, i knew it would take time to reverse the damage of a decade worth of policies that sought to few people being able to climb into the middle-class, too many people falling behind. [applause] we all knew this. we knew it would take more time than any of us want to dig ourselves out of this whole created by this economic crisis. on this labor day, there are two things i want you to know -- #one, i am going to keep fighting every single day, every single hour, every single minute to turn this economy around and put people back to work and renew the american
dream, not just for your family, not just for all our families, but for future generations. that, i can guarantee you. [applause] #2, i believe this with every fiber of my being, america cannot have a strong, growing economy without a strong, growing middle-class. and the chance for everybody, no matter how humble their beginnings, to join that middle- class. [applause] a middle-class bill on the idea that if you work hard -- a middle-class built on the idea that if you work hard, and you tend to responsibilities, you can get ahead, that you enjoy some basic guarantees in life. a good job that pays a good
wage. health care that will be there when you get sick. [applause] a secure retirement even if you are not rich. an education that will give your children a better life than we had. these are simple ideas. these are american ideas. these are union ideas. that is what we are fighting for. [applause] i was thinking about this last week -- on the day i announced the end of our combat mission in iraq -- [applause] i spent some time, as i often do with our soldiers and our veterans. this new generation of troops
coming home from iraq, they have earned their place alongside the greatest generation, just like that greatest generation, they got the skills, they've got the training, they've got the drive to move america pause economy forward once more. we have been investing in new care, new opportunities, and a new commitment to our veterans because we have to serve them just the way they served us. [applause] but, milwaukee, they're coming home to an economy hit by recession deeper than anything we have seen since the 1930's. the question is how do we create the same kinds of middle-class opportunities for this generation as my grandparents' generation came home to? how do we build our economy on
that same strong and stable foundation for growth? anybody who thinks we can move this economy forward with just a few folks at top doing well hoping that it's going to trickle down to working people who are running faster and faster just to keep up, you will never see it. [applause] if that is what you are waiting for, you should stop waiting because it has never happened in our history. that is not how america was built. it was not built with a bunch of folks at top doing well and everybody else scrambling. we did not become the most prosperous country in the world by rewarding greed and recklessness. we did not come this far by letting the special interests run wild. we did not do it just by gambling and chasing paper profits on wall street.
we built this country by making things, by producing goods we could sell. we did it with sweat and effort and innovation. we did it on the assembly line. and at the construction site. we did it by investing in the people who built this country from the ground up, the workers, middle class families, small business owners. we are workloads and educated folks and we out competed everybody else. that is how we build america. [applause] and, milwaukee, that is what we are going to do again. that has been at the heart of we have been doing these 20 months -- building our economy on a new foundation so that our middle-class doesn't just survive this crisis, i want it to thrive and wanted to be stronger than was before. over the last two years, that
has meant taking on some powerful interests. some powerful interests to have been dominating the agenda in washington for a long time and they are not always happy with me. they talk about me like a dog. [applause] that's not my prepared remarks, but it's true. [applause] that is why we passed financial reform, to provide new accountability and tough oversight of wall street. stopping credit card companies from gouging you with hidden fees and unfair rate hikes. ending taxpayer bailout of wall street once and for all. they are not happy with it, but its the right thing to do. [applause] that is why we eliminated tens
of billions of dollars in wasteful taxpayer subsidies, handouts, to the big banks providing student loans. we took that money, tens of billions of dollars, and we're going to make sure that your kids and grandkids can get student loans and grants at a cheap rate and afford a college education. they're not happy with it, but it's the right thing to do. [applause] we are using those savings to put a college education within reach for working families. that is why we passed health insurance reform, to make coverage affordable. [applause] reform that ends the indignity of insurance companies jacking up your premiums at will, denying you coverage just because you get sick, or form
that gives you control, gives you the ability if your child is sick to be able to get an affordable insurance plan, making sure they cannot drop it. that is why we are making it easier for workers to save for retirement with new ways of saving your tax refund. a simpler system for enrolling andplants like 401k's fighting to strengthen social security in the future. if anyone is still talking about privatizing social security, they need to be clear it will not happen on my watch, not while i'm president of the united states. [applause] that is why -- we have given tax cuts. we gave them to folks in need them.
we have given them to small business owners. we have given them to clean energy companies. we have cut taxes for 95% of working americans, just like a promise you during the campaign. you all got a tax cut. [applause] instead of giving tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas, we are cutting taxes for companies putting our people to work right here in the united states of america. [applause] we want to invest in growth energies likely energy and manufacturing. you have got leaders here in wisconsin who have been fighting to bring those jobs to milwaukee, fighting to bring those jobs to wisconsin.
i don't want to see solar panels and wind turbines and electric cars made in china. i want to make right here in the united states of america. [applause] -- i want them made right here in the united states of america. [applause] i don't want to buy stuff from someplace else. i want to grow our exports so that we are selling to someplace else, products that say made in the usa. [applause] [chanting "usa."] there are no better workers and american workers. i will put my money on you any day of the week. when the naysayers say you could
not save the auto industry, let hundreds of thousands of jobs vanish, we said we're going to stand by this workers. if the management is willing to make tough choices, if everybody is willing to come together, i am confident the american auto industry can compete once again. today, that industry is on the way back. they said no, we said yes to the american workers. they are coming back. [applause] let me tell you, another thing we have done is to make long overdue investments in upgrading our outdated, hour and efficient national infrastructure. -- our inefficient national and the structure. we're talking roads, dams and levees. but we're also talking about a
smart electric grid that timbering clean energy to new areas. we're talking about broadband internet. we're talking about high-speed rail lines, required to compete in a 21st century economy. i want to get from milwaukee down to chicago quick. [applause] i'm bored of traffic jams. talking investments in tomorrow creating hundreds of thousands of private-sector jobs right now. because of these investments and the tens of thousands of projects they have spurred all across the country, the battered construction sector actually grew last month for the first time in a very long time. [applause] but the folks here in the trades know what i'm talking about.
nearly one in five construction workers are unemployed. one in five. nobody has been hit harder than construction workers. all lot of those folks lost their jobs in manufacturing and went into construction and now they have lost their jobs again. it doesn't do anybody any good when so many hard-working americans have been idle for months, even years at a time when there is so much of america that needs rebuilding. that is why, milwaukee, today, i am announcing a new plan for rebuilding and modernizing america's roads and rails and runways for the long term. i want america to have the best infrastructure in the world. we used to have the best infrastructure in the world. we can have it again. we're going to make it happen. [applause]
over the next six years, we are going to rebuild 150,000 miles of our roads. that's enough to circle the world six times. that's a lot of road. we're going to lay and maintain 4,000 miles of our railways, enough to stretch coast-to- coast. we're going to restore 150 miles of runways and we're going to advance the next generation air- traffic control system to reduce travel time and delays for american travelers. i think everybody can agree on that. anybody want more delays at airports? i didn't think so. that's not a republican or democratic idea, we all want to get to where we need to go. i have air force one now, it's nice. but i still remember what it was like. [laughter]
this is a plan that will be fully paid for. it will not add to deficit over time. we're going to work with congress to see to that. we want to set up an infrastructure bank to leverage federal dollars and focus on the smartest investments. we are going to continue our strategy to build a national high-speed rail network that reduces conducted -- and to -- reduces ingestion, traffic time and harmful emissions. we want to cut waste and bureaucracy, consolidate and collapse more than 100 different programs that too often duplicate each other. we want to change the way washington spends your tax dollars. we want to reform and haphazard, patchwork way of doing business. we want to focus on less wasteful approaches and we've got right now. we want competition and innovation that gives us the best bang for the buck. but the bottom line is this,
milwaukee -- this will not only create jobs immediately, it is also going to make our economy, over the long haul. aunt -- make our economyhum over the long haul. it should and could attract bipartisan short. even in the -- bipartisan support. even in the worst recession in our lifetimes, american and shape its own investment, we can still move this country forward, we can still leave our children something better. [applause] so these are the things we have been working for. these are some of the victories you guys have helped us achieve. and we're not finished. we have a lot more progress to make. and i am confident we will. but, there are some folks in washington who see things differently.
[booing] you know what i am talking about. when it comes to building our middle-class and strengthening our economy, almost every republican in congress sesno. even on things we usually agree on, they say no. -- every republican in congress says know. if i say the sky was blue, they say no. if i said fish live in the sea, they would say no. [laughter] they just think it's better to score political points before an election than to solve problems. so they said no to help for small businesses, even when the small businesses said we desperately need it. that used to be their key
constituency, they said no. they said no to bequest tax cuts. i say let's give tax cuts to the middle-class and they say no. note to clean energy jobs. no to making colleges more affordable. no to war reform in wall street. they are saying -- note to reforming wall street. they're saying no to helping small business owners and getting them financing. somebody out here was yelling "yes we can" remember that slogan? their slogan is "no, we can't." [chanting "yes, we can."]
i personally think yes, we can is more inspiring than know, we can't. to steal a line from my old friend, ted kennedy, what is it about working men and women may find so offensive? when we passed a bill earlier this summer to help states save jobs, the jobs of hundreds of thousands of teachers, nurses, police officers, firefighters that were about to be laid off, they said no. [applause] the republican who thinks he's going to take over as speaker -- [laughter] [booing] that's his opinion. he's entitled to his opinion. when asked about this, he
dismissed those jobs as a government jobs that weren't worth saving. that is what he said. government jobs. think about this. these are the people who teach our children. these are the people who keep our streets safe. these are the people who put their lives on the line, who rushed in to a burning building. government jobs? i don't know about you, but i think those jobs are worth saving. [applause] i think those jobs are worth saving. [applause] by the way, this bill that we passed to save all those jobs, we made sure that bill would not add to the deficit. do you know how we paid for it? by closing one of these
ridiculous tax loopholes that actually rewarded corporations for shipping jobs and profits overseas. [applause] this was one of those loopholes that allow companies to write off taxes they paid to foreign governments even though they were not paying taxes here in the united states. so middle-class families were footing tax breaks for companies creating jobs somewhere else. even a lot of america's biggest corporations agreed this loophole did not make sense and agreed it needed to be closed, agreed it was unfair. but the man who thinks he is going to be speaker, he wants to reopen this loophole.
[booing] the bottom line is this -- these guys don't want to give up on the economic philosophy they have been peddling for most of the last decade. you know that philosophy. you cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires, you cut all the rules and regulations for special interests, and then you cut working fauves lives. you cut them loose to fend for themselves. -- you remember, they called it the ownership society. but when it boiled down to is if you couldn't afford job, you couldn't afford college, you were born poor, your insurance company dropped to even know your kid was sick, that you were on your own. that philosophy did not work out so well for middle-class families all across america. it did not work out well for our country. all it did was racked up record
deficits and results in the worst economic crisis since the great depression. think about it, we have tried what they're peddling. we did it for 10 years. we ended up with the worst economy since the 1930's and record deficits to boot. it's not like we haven't tried what they're trying to sell less. i'm bringing this up not because i'm trying to relitigate the past, i'm bringing it up because i don't want to relive the past. [applause] it would be one thing, milwaukee, if republicans in washington had some new ideas. if they had said we really screwed up and we learned from our mistakes. we're going to do things differently this time. that is not what they're doing. when the leader of their campaign committee was asked on national television what
republicans would do if they took over congress, do you know what he said? he said we would do exactly the same thing we did the last time. that is what he said. it's on tape. so basically, here is what this election comes down to -- they are betting that between now and november, you are going to come down with amnesia. they figure you are going to forget what their agenda did to this country. they think you will believe they have changed. these are the folks his policies helped devastate our middle- class and drove our economy into a ditch. we got in there and put on our boots and pushed and shoved and we were sweating. these guys were standing, watching us, sipping on a,
pointing at us saying how come you're not pushing harder? how come you're not pushing faster? when we finally got the car up and it's got a few dings and a few dents, it's got some but on that, we're going to have to do some work on it, they point that everybody and say it would get with these guys did to your car. actually, we got out of the ditch. then they have the nerve to ask for the keys back. i don't want to give them the keys back. they don't know how to drive. [applause] i want everybody to think about it here. when you want to go forward in your car, what do you do? you put it in "d"-- they are
going to pop it in reverse and they have those special interests riding shotgun and then they hit the gas and we will be right back in the ditch. [laughter] milwaukee, we are not going backwards. that is the choice we face this fall. do we want to go back or do we want to go forward? i say we want to move forward. america always moves forward. we keep moving forward every day. [applause] let me say this, milwaukee. i know these are difficult times. i know folks are worried. i know there is still a lot of hurt out there. i hear it when i travel around the country. i see it in the letters i read every night from folks who are
looking for a job, who lost their homes. it breaks my heart. those are folks i got into politics for. you are the reason i'm here. [applause] when times are tough, i know it can be easy to get into cynicism. i know it can be easy to get into fear and doubt. it's easy for folks to stir up stuff and turn people on each other. to settle for something less and set our sights a little bit lower. but i want everybody here to remember that that's not who we are. that is not the country i know.
we do not give up. we do not quit. we face down war, we face down depression, we face down great challenges. we have lit the way for the rest of the world. whenever times have seemed that the worst, americans have been at their best. -- that is when we roll up our sleeves and remember we rise or fall together as one nation and one people. that is the spirit that started the labor movement, the idea that alone we may be weak, divided we may fall, but we are united, we are strong. that is why we call them unions and that is why we call this the united states of america. i'm going to make this case across the country between now and november. i am asking for your help and if you are willing to join me, we
in milwaukee, wisconsin, talking up the infrastructure plan estimated to cost $50 billion, designed to expand the nation's roads, railways and airports. we will bring you this announcement again tonight at 8:00 eastern. on wednesday, the president will make an announcement at tie hogan community college on his proposal to permanently extend the research and experiments -- experimental tax credit at helping -- aimed at helping companies while increasing future productivity and growth. meanwhile, the house republican whip, a erikcantor has issued a statement, saying last years stimulus bill failed to deliver and the government cannot keep spending money it does not have. you can read more of his remarks on his official website. the u.s. chamber of commerce presented its annual labor day briefing. you will hear from the chamber's
chief economist, martin regalia, and the senior vice president of labor on current economic and workplace issues for business. this is one hour and 15 minutes. >> we are fortunate to have with us martin regalia,, the chief economist and the vice president of labor and employee benefits. >> thank you very much. thank you for being here this morning. i'm going to start you off and give you a free -- if you brief remarks on the economy and then
i'm going to speak a little bit about the labor markets at the end of the presentation. i think the important fact right now is that we are growing again. we began growing about a year ago. we grew at 1.6% in the third quarter at, than 5%, then 3.7%, then unfortunately, back down to 1.6% to read the important thing is that average of about 3% is only equal to just about our long run potential. when you do not grow above your long run potential, you do not create the kind of job growth that you need to reemploye individuals that were displaced during the economic downturn. we were looking at significant job losses, almost 8 million during the course of the downturn. we saw a number of people quit
looking for work because they were discouraged and therefore were not counted in the statistics. then, we had almost 9.5 million people at the peak who were working part-time for economic reasons. that is to say they wanted to work full time but cannot find full-time jobs. if we're going to reemploye thoe kind of people, we're going to have to create an economy grows faster than its long run potential. you can look at this chart, you can see coming out of the 1982 recession, coming out of the 74-75 recession, these were long, steep recession. we grew very rapidly, 6.5% or so, almost 8% coming out of the recession in 1982. as a result, we reemployed people fairly quickly and put them back to work in nine months in the first case and 12-month in the second case. but, the last three recessions,
91, 2001, and the most recent recession, we have not. it has taken 24 months in 1991, it took almost 39 months. in 2001 -- these are the so- called "jobless recovery is." init was not until the 2003 tax cuts that the economy began to grow according to its potential. i think the key for us in this environment is, how do we do relative to potential backs unemployment is hanging up -- the long run rate of unemployment. this is why people use survey, that you all see, say be have not come up of the recession?
in many cases, we are still in the recession. the biggest, most important factor for many people is do they have a job or not? it is understandable that people are saying things are not working. there are a couple of tables here. we will hand these out afterward. but it compares the recessions in the post-war area and give you a little bit of statistics i have calculated. again, be consistent feature is that prior to 1991, we went into recession. they were generally at steeper. coming on of those recessions, we cannot much faster. something happened in the last three. i do not think it is just political. some of these were under republicans, some are under democrats. there has been a structural
change in the economy. dealing with that is -- it means we need more aggressive policies so we generate the growth that we need. i will let you guys poor through these numbers -- pore through these numbers. there is a lot of talk about the new normal, the new economy. as someone who still did the -- who studied the old economy, i do not believe that changes. it does not become a light switch and change. we have seen changes before. i think if we could get some of the normal factors moving in the right direction again, we could see economic growth picking up above its potential, more like we have come to expect. consumption is still 70% of the
economy, would still drive everything else. consumption has been mediocre at best. the reason is that factors that drive consumption have been relatively slow, and wealth is still a neagtive -- negative. the stock market fell off a bit. we lost, gave a little of that back. the two biggest portions of individual wealth is the stock portfolio, and to a greater extent, housing. i do not see as getting back the wealth we lost and putting everyone back an equal footing until the housing market recovers. there are different ways to look back. you can talk about the rebalancing of consumer balance sheets.
it all comes down to one thing. we have lost wealth. until that starts to come back, we are not going to see them spending. when you look at the housing market, it is not like we used to look at it in the old days and say, well, when will they start building again? you have to look at the entire market, and not just when will they start building? it is when will be values come back and prepare the wealth of the american consumers. when that happens, they will start spending again. some of that will be on housing. the housing market is still pretty much moribund. the numbers we saw last month, big declines on existing sales and the like, were stunning for those looking for improvement in this market. not completely surprising given the initial investment had expired, but still, these numbers should be improving by now, and they are not. i think if you look at the lower
panel on this chart, and you see the amount of delinquencies in the subprime market, and you see the amount of foreclosures in the subprime market, that there is still considerable inventory out there that has to be either foreclosed on or reabsorbs back into the main part of the market before we are going to see price stability, and more important, price appreciation. i think we are still looking at probably a year or more of dealing with a subpar housing market. it is going to be quite some time before this asset bubble has worked its way through the system. so, you know, the bad news -- if the good news is we are growing again, the bad news is we have factors like this that will require some time to work through before we can move the economy fell growth rate from below its potential to above its
potential. the investment sector has been doing well. investment in software has been strong. you have to ask yourself why. why do businesses invest? it is so they can provide consumers with the products they want when they want them at a price that they want. that is why you invest. what i see happening now in the business community is different. it is more of an artificial accumulation of capital. businesses have cut employment dramatically in the downturn. said they have internal profits, and much of those profits have been held in the form of cash. there is much talk and in the press about the business cash position and the fact that businesses are holding summer in the neighborhood -- somewhere in
the neighborhood of $1.8 trillion. a more normal number would be $1.2 trillium. businesses do not earn on that cash assets. they would like to invest those, but they are not. the reason they are not is because of the uncertainties they face. uncertainties in the basic economy over whether the consumer is going to come back, when housing is going to stabilize, when they are producing more customer demand. and also political uncertainties about what is happening with the policies of this administration and the congress. until they see more certainty, you are not going to see them come of those cash positions.
in the meantime, no business like to hold excess cash. especially in an environment where corporate stock can be at depressed levels. you are looking at a low stock market. and you look at a business with a lot of cash on hand. and oftentimes, that just looks like food to someone out there in the market looking for a business to acquire. you can apply your a business like that with some cash position. and so, they want to burn some of that cash off, not wanting to increase our productive capacity in an environment where there is not demand to warrant that. they do the next best thing. they put it into capital. there is a limit to that, because the end result, any endpoint you are trying to meet is to meet demand.
if demand is not there, there is a limited amount of time he will continue to invest. without demand picking up, i do not see the investment numbers being as strong as they have been over the past year. with consumption week and investment week, economic growth is hard to generate. it has deteriorated because growth abroad is coming in fits and starts. we have the problem that slowed growth in the european union is known -- zone. growth around the world is something that has been lackluster, at best. exporting demand, it is relatively soft. we have seen domestic purchases increase. we have seen domestic oil
increase. as a result, we've seen the terms of trade shifted against us. our dollar strengthened a bit. we have seen demand abroad lack a bit. we are starting to see a little bit of a decline in the improvements we have seen in the trade sector. i think there is more to come. the dollar has behaved in a relatively stable way now. we are not going to see growth abroad pick up overnight. central bankers around the world are concerned and trying to come up with the right formula to generate more growth. with that happening, i do not see the trade sector providing a real blessing or a way out for our slow growth economy.
the bond markets have been concerned about deflationary. that is one of the reasons, and when you look at the interest rate spectrum out there today, you see virtually zero short- term rates, an extremely low, 2.5% on the 10-year bond is an extremely low rate. this allows the government to carry debt at a relatively low cash flow. not in an absolute sense, but relatively low. it does point out that down the road, we will start to see inflation pickup down the road. it will be harder and harder to service this debt levels. so, right now, i do not see inflation being a problem. i see a disinflationary environment.
when we look at the situations, they are much improved from where they are at this time last year. while the spreads are back, the volumes are not back. big banks tellus the demand is not there. many small businesses say that the supply has shifted to a point where they are not willing to make months they have made in the past. i think this could be in the eye of the beholder. again, as long as the financial reform bill is out there -- everyone is going to worry about whether they are on the right side of the equation.
that is one of the reasons the recent lyndon bill -- we have not opposed it. we've never really supported. it begs the question. the question is will providing the banks more capital result in more loans. the little banks have seen the big banks take more capital from the government. the circumstances have not always been possible. they will be somewhat respectable -- they will be somewhat skeptical. it will also be skeptical about taking loans from the government. they end up holding the rest, and if they make a mistake, what is the federal government going to do. you are providing more capital, that you are sending unmixed message. this administration took the
student lending program back from the banks, consolidated in the government. now they are taking the same banks and saying, well, we are going to instruct you and give you the capital to make small- business clients. student loans are easier loans to make. there's a whole different risk profile on them. we are going to enable you to make small-business loans, but then we will be looking over your shoulder. i do not think these programs will have the bang for the bulk that it otherwise would have. the deficit we have seen in the last couple of years, and are
likely to see next year are to a the budgetnt -- problems that are truly problematic for the economy in the long run, it is not what happened last year, this year, or next year, but what is going to happen in five years, 10 years, 15 years, 20 years. the problem with our current situation is our spending and revenue-generating potential do not meet. we are seeing bigger and bigger deficits. they will be structural deficits, not cyclical deficit. does occur and extinguished as the economy recovers. structural deficits and not. the problem we are seeing and the problem that will cause concern down the road is structural deficits. i want to end with 5 minutes on the labour market. the labor market is where the
recession settled in. we have lost 8 million jobs. we have unemployment that is at 9.5% and has been stuck there. it will rise when the marginally-attached workers start to look for work. they will suddenly be counted as unemployed workers. and they will show up in the statistics. we see a little bit of improvement. it has stopped spiking, unemployment. claims are elevated again. at this stage of recovery, he would like to see that number a lot lower. the duration of unemployment is extraordinarily long.
robert wrote an op-ed recently about how the extension of unemployment benefits may have given people an incentive to remain unemployed longer and that might be an explanation for this. the unemployment problem in shifting from a cyclical problem. it is harder for them to stay in the work force. there is a greater problem matching demand with supply in the work force. all of these things will play this down the road if we do not begin to address them now. the only way to address them in the short term is to get the economy growing faster.
this chart shows you just how steep this particular cycle was relative to past cycles. when you look where we're starting today, which is significantly below, it is even more imperative the economy grow faster rate. i will slip to this one, right here. if we wanted to get back to our level of unemployment and job growth that existed when the recession ended at the end of last summer this time a year
ago, how many jobs would be created starting then in order for us to get back to where we were in five years. remember, i said in 2001, it was nine months. in '91, it took four months. in 1982, it only took nine months of the year. how do we get back in five years? let's pick a realistic target. you can see the job growth is well below the line we would need. in fact, if you look at this particular -- i do not know if it is this one. if you look at this particular chart, this one says, let's start at the beginning of this year. let's not worry about the last one. let's look at when we started creating jobs at the beginning
of this year. how much do we have to grow? how fast? how many jobs do we have to create in order to get back to employing all the people lost their jobs? the new people and the people who actually lost their jobs? not looking at the marginally- attached workers. just the job loss in the new entrants in the us five years. as you can see, we are well below that line. we have to grow at 240,000 jobs a month in order to get back in five years. and we are not anywhere near that. the first half of this year, when we were showing -- seeing positive growth -- job growth, it was only 95,000 up -- 95,000 jobs a month. that means you have to make up that shortfall and grow even faster.
so it is imperative we get this economy growing more quickly rather than letting it work on its own it down the road. when we look at what has happened in wages and salaries, they have suffered as well. by virtually any measure of wage, you look at the real average hourly earnings, and they jumped up because of the decline in inflation. the nominal wages believe were rising. when you look at real employee's total compensation, real per worker, real paperwork for, these are broader concepts. there are virtually flat. that is not what you want to see either. you want to see improvement there, because we'll pay equates to real standing rigid standard of living improvement. the way to get those up is to create more tightness in the
labour market. when the labor market is operating with 10% slack, and almost 18% in terms of underemployment, you're not going to see wage pressures building. you're not going to see incomes growing. at some point, you have to break into this and get the economy moving again. we know what is happening in household incomes. they are down. we look at what is happening at the poverty level. it is up. an interesting number there, it is a number to measure how skewed is the economy. are the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer? until go back to '92, 2000, the clinton era. with the clinton tax cuts, we saw the inequality in the
economy rise modestly. whereas, with the bush tax cut -- the clinton tax increases actually lead to more inequality. the bush tax cut, the 2001 and tax cuts sought time when the inequalities' did the same. this trend does all the way back to the 1980's and before. this is not something that is policy-induced. but it is something that can be affected by policy. but the slam on the tax cuts is that they were tax cuts for the rich. if they were just for the rich, then you should not seem the income inequality rise dramatically. it did not. it was more level than it was.
finally, this just kind of shows the dispersion of income and taxes. we have a progressive tax system. the rich pay more and then there "fair share." the top 1% controls 22% of income but they paid 40% of taxes, and right down to the income distribution. we have a progressive income tax system. we do not think that making it more progressive is going to be conducive to growth. because the rich spend. everybody says the poor have a heart -- a higher margin, consuming more everyone dollars and make. and that is true. but the rich control so much more of the income, so even though they are spending relatively less, they are spending huge amounts. you cannot drive a broad-based
economy like the u.s. economy just on the spending of the middle and lower class is. so if you are trying to generate broad-based consumption and you are trying to generate economic growth and you are trying to get the economy improving at a greater rate than 3% annual trying to get a job creation going, you cannot, as it were, what about part of the population, say, i am not going to look at them. i am going to tax them. and then i will give it to the other group and they will spend more. because you never come out whole on that one. you are not going to generate more consumption that way. in addition, many of the people that would be hit by tax increases -- it were not extended. other people that create jobs and growth -- you are taxing the
engine of job growth, the people that's been, and that policy and environment just this does seem to be making good sense. i will stop there and i will turn it over to many. -- manny. >> very quickly, and when to talk about the state of the american workforce, issues we are seeing with the arizona employment lot area, immigration, and health care. anglin to see if i can do that in 12 minutes, a little less. we often see rhetoric coming out of the union of meant. they use words like "corporate trader," terrorist, things like
that. employers are having a tough time. they are still providing employment-based health insurance. something like 88 million americans. the statistics are in. -- the statistics are in your material there. there's a lot of unfortunate stuff going on, but employers are trying to do the best they can buy the workers, and i think the statistics bear that out. i think last week, a gallup came out with a poll that surprisingly -- literally it last week, 2010, august -- that 40% of workers hold were completely satisfied that were -- at work. that comes to 87% completely or somewhat satisfied at work.
more interesting, at 8% were completely dissatisfied at the workplace. say ton the union's, i my characterized labor day as the day when we have to rein in the employer community, i think it is useful to keep this kind of data in context. i will let the labor movement speak for themselves. the trend has been -- membership is down. of course, in the area of state and local governments, it has been steadily rising. this year, we saw that half of the union membership in this country now works for the public sector, federal, state, or local governments. why do we care at the chamber?
that brings to the for the fact that union movement is going to have a hard time moving away from bigger government to more spending, and that is the basis of what their union membership is. it is going to be paid for by higher taxes on the private sector workers and private sector companies. yes, we do that as an alarm. we will put the federal government a side. recently we had a conference on underfunding and pension at the state and local health care funding. you are all familiar with california -- we are all familiar with california. it is underfunding promises made, which they cannot meet. other studies put it close to $3 trillion. there has been some attention paid to this.
when people see the clothes allegiance between the union movement and government, what we see is an alarming trend. this is another area where workers will be facing higher taxes. it is an area that has been swept under the rug for so long. not a lot of attention has been paid to it. we will be following this very closely at the chamber. just parenthetically, there was a situation and a pension plan was underfunded by $100 million. what do you do about that? the city leaders were headed deal with the union leaders there to sweeten the pension path -- pot and increased the pension funding by another $100
million. the point is, instead of working and a dlp taxpayers would be on the hope for, it went the other way. but some of our union leaders in washington, they say they do not have an entitlement problem, not a revenue problem. meaning the solution to spending problems at the federal government is not cuts, just revenue, i think we can see where the trend is going to go with the union movement. but me say that -- let me say that marty indicated -- i've been with the department of labor for six years. i have never seen a more impressive -- iowa state anti- employment, more impressive movement to put more employers
in the employment and labor area than ever before. that is what this book is all about. i am not going to go through everything that is in there. it is split into three parts. what is going on capitol hill? what is going on in more sort of, more obscure areas of the sub-regulatory level. there is legislation to halt the unions organize, legislation to increase the level of damages under existing laws. for example, are civil rights laws. but people do not know an employer can be penalized for discriminatory allegation of to $300,000 plus lost back. that is a lot of money. there is a bill on the hell -- hill.
but increase mandates on the floors. let's increase the number of categories. let's increase protection. not only this, we have elimination of employers' ability to use arbitration. below that, is the steering of the pot, to encourage, i would say people to bring cases against employers. that is what this booklet is all about. i realize it is not an easy piece of reading. if you look to the introduction, i think it lays out the case. it is not that we disagree with everything the administration is doing. frankly, a lot of the details still have to be fleshed out. in fact, the chamber is not always the chamber of nos. sometimes it is the chamber of
compromising. we will stand back at work or recant, which is what we did on the americans with disabilities act. again, in my experience, i've never seen quite such a level of regulatory burden, and what martti talking about, certainly in the tax area, i am looking back and say, wow. if i hire an employee, who knows what i will be exposed to in terms of future liabilities? i am only going to talk about one bill. it is a major concern of mine members afl-cio continues to bring it up. that is the employer choice act. there's some talk about trying to bring it up in the lame duck. i think it is worthy of note that the linchpin of that legislation again is the elimination of the secret
ballot. i just want to read a quote from a union organizer on this issue when he talked about how the so-called card check process can be abused. this is from a former union organizer. contact first moment was made, doocy began. employees were put in fear of what might happen to them if they did that change their minds about the union. carjack organizing drives gives the union more power over employees -- card check organizing drives give the union more power over employees. there are arbitration provisions, which of course, the chamber does oppose. the linchpin of the bill has been testified against by many
workers. we feel we have the votes. we look forward to that fight in the lame duck if the unions want to pursue that. the agree with the majority of the american public which have come up in recent polls -- we agree with the maturity -- the majority of the american public which have come out in recent polls is say they wish the law would be repealed. they're concerned about the impact on job growth. we feel the same mind read the chamber. we're heavily involved in the regulatory process, specifically the grandfathering fraud position -- provision. from my viewpoint, a testified twice on the hill on this issue. the white house speech writers never knew what the legislation said on capitol hill. when the president was saying
ill would control costs, it would never control costs, and that was patently obvious to everybody. they did not deal with this -- it is unfortunate they did not just -- they did not deal with the issue more honestly. but they did not. it is time to make clear -- our members are going to look at this. we can come back to that. last point on emigration -- you will notice on the pamphlet here, we have immigration coming down. you're working on immigration reform. we are in discussions on the temporary worker program. hopefully over the next three months, we will have an agreement on that and something to submit to senators in january or february. there are a variety of other areas that we are concerned
about. one is the new field memo, which is discussed in your materials there. it redefines the rule making, and it redefines the employer/employee relationship. for the purposes of concluding his as a qualified applicant or employer, who is the employer and who was not the employer? my point is a lot of our major member, companies he would represent, these are not fly by night companies. a lot of these positions are being held up in the department of labour. there's a lot being said on capitol hill. there is one bill that would say if you are a company and you lay off an employee in any part of your company, your therefore
prohibited from hiring ian h1b visa holder. these are unfortunate pieces of legislation, which i think speaks to the way the immigration issue has been demagogued on capitol hill. again, a lot of the material is discussed in the pamphlet. now, i do want to mention on health reform, again, our time is short -- we do have a website up. it is called healthreform impacts.org. the chamber has been accused sometimes of not representing our members and overstating the case. that is not the case. here is one small businessman.
"i it ran a small business with 28 employer -- employees. i've had a group health plan from the largest provider of such plans in new jersey. after the president passed the legislation, my insurance company changed their policy. my group was dropped from the group policy, and we cannot find any company that can cover my employees. whenever i or my human-resources manager asked why the rules have changed, we get the same response. they say, it is that health care bill that has everything screwed up." "we just got our own health insurance from a carrier that has been very satisfactory. our rates will go up 34% in the next year. obamacare was supposed to reduce cost to small businesses? -- businesses?"
this is what we are hearing from our members. the a conference with the chairman just a few weeks ago. a lot of small businessmen. they are very concerned about the employer mandate. particularly when these people were done very small margins. lastly, as you are looking at this booklet, bear in mind the massive requirements employers already have to comply with under existing law. by the way, in your booklet, these policies are not quite the same as the ones in your booklet. capitol hill always seems to forget that. they look at bills individually without looking at the totality of the circumstances. all of that leads to a
tremendous amount of uncertain fate. what happens if i get sued if i fire an employee under some new -- if i hire an employee under some new law. that is where we are, i think. with that, we will open it up. >> on health care, it appears -- it seems that the whole deal would be pretty much impossible even if republicans take both chambers in the fall. what is your desired outcome, resolution of the situation to get things to something that is more fitting for your constituents? we are realists. we are heavily promoting a rule that would work for the 1099
agreement. we recently sent a letter, to 1099 businesses in support of legislation to repeal the part of the bill. i think frankly, most policy makers in the congress never knew that was in the legislation and were surprised to find out. i am sure it is in one senator's bill to repeal the employer mandate. once you start repealing this part or that part, smarter people then we can answer what happens. he will test the political waters and see what can be done. -- we will test the political waters. i agree. repeal is not likely going to happen.
>> hi, yes. i know the bush tax cuts extension is your first priority, the canyon tell what -- talk about -- but can you talk about the benefits of the pale road tax holiday? -- payroll tax holiday? >> it would depend on how the payroll tax holiday is structured. there has been some question on the payroll tax holiday. it really depends on how it is structured. whether it is an employer or employee. there has been a lot of hype. giving a short term tax rebate or hiring a worker that has been out of work for two months or
more. the problem with that, that particular legislation is that, one, it is not focused at the margin. so, if you hire anybody that meets the minimum qualifications, you get a credit for. it is not like to have to hire more than you laid off. just made -- make a higher. you see in the statistics, a net figure that has a huge a gross figure needed and providing an incentive for activity that would already take place gets to be very expensive and is not generate marginally new activity. natalie that, but i think it put a two-month lag in the air. you have to hire someone who has been out of work for two months to keep people from gaming the
system by firing someone in hiring them right back. but if you do that, you play havoc with the productivity of the worker. when workers are laid off, you lay off your least productive first, and then your next, and you're next. the last person you layoff is the most productive person you have, presumably. when you hire somebody back, you cannot hire them back. so you're talking about hiring people that that have somewhat more robust skills sets, that have not been back to work as recently as some other people and so, it is more important for businesses to look at the long run profitability of that new worker and not just the short run tax gain. so what the administration claims that 5.5 million people have qualified for the credit.
-- both by the credit, they have not said anything about how many of those people would have been hired anyway and how much the cost of the program as compared to the bang for the buck. when you look at the overall statistics on job creation, it is hard to find where 5.5 million net new jobs have been created. so there is obviously a lot of paying off for -- paying for out of the policy. for jobs that would have been created anyway. >> that is like the tax holiday, right? >> that is the payroll tax credit. that is how that is implemented. you get a credit against your payroll taxes. a broad based payroll tax holiday would be different. it would still suffer from some of the same issues as bang for the buck. how many net new workers would be hired that would not have
been hired under another program. it would depend on how it would apply to and who it was therefore. the only way to higher in a permanent way is to get the economy growing. that is the bottom line. the bottom line is it will hire to meet demand. that is what they are in business for. to meet demand and make a reasonable profit. when demand picks up -- then we will see more hiring, and the payroll tax credit would help in that regard, but only tangentially. it will provide more -- more
income for more citizens should lead to more consumption as well as more hiring. it really depends how broad it was and how long it was in for and that sort of thing. >> [unintelligible] >> martin, should they bring back the home buyer tax credit? >> is applied to everyone. >> at this particular juncture, i think that is something that could be looked at. at the same token, it really depends. it was a credit for first-time home buyers only that was not --
first-time home buyers only. that was not a product group to bootstrap the housing market. -- that was not a broad enough group to bootstrap the housing market. it appeared that homebuying was shifted. shifting time periods does not really generate net growth in that area. if you can rob from tamara and put in today and jump-start the economy going so you get some of the positive effects of the economy, then there is some rationale for that type of credit. in this case, it is too small applied to too few individuals, and so all it did was take from tomorrow, moving into today, and when we get into tomorrow, we will see big declines. that is extended until the end
of april. we sought increasing sales numbers in the april time. then you could still qualify for credit. as soon as that time. has run out, he would see a fairly significant decline in the home buying, housing sales and the like. i do not think the credit worked to jump-start the economy. it worked to shift the expenditure timing, but it did not jump-start expenditures. a broader credit, we felt, might have. i do not think anyone at this point is discussing a broad- based homebuyer credit that would be out there for anybody. when you have a huge overhang in housing, and you have a huge problem in housing that is in large part created because of the lending market, people who
got loans, they could never service those months. they got guns on the hope that the market would continue to improve -- they got loans on the hope that the market would continue to improve. it that is a pretty good world to live in. we are not in that world anymore. the people who have wherewithal to buy homes and not the people that were already in the subprime market. they are the people that do not. >> [unintelligible] >> the problem with credits if you go that route is picking the timing. he proposed a two-year credit. if you pick a two-year credit, what is going to happen and as many people will delay the purchase to see how things are going. i will wait a little bit.
at the end of the two years, you will see a spurt of buying, and after that, you will see a trough. the only time those short-term credits are structured and in that way -- short-term credit structured in a way rarely seen to work is if you pick the timing. if you say, ok, i really need to generate growth this year. the last time i sought a credit like that, it was an investment credit that was extended under the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts where we told businesses, if you invest up to point x, you're going to get a tax credit back. it was put in there because it was felt if we could shift expenditures from next year to this year, we could generate enough momentum for the economy going forward. it was robbing peter to pay
paul, but they felt if they could get all spending, it would be positive force for the economy. i think it worked to an extent. there are people who criticized the up program because they said the timing there was not right as well. some businesses did not take advantage of it and said, well, gee, we ought to extend it again. i think the housing credit had a benefit, or there was a concept behind it a one point in time. i do not think it was executed quite well enough. it was too small a credit to too few people. i do not think at this point extending the credit would do much good. the credit depends on the timing and how much we know about the economy. >> yes? >> a little bit about the discussion on temporary workers.
what exactly does the chamber wants? would that be a standalone piece of legislation? >> it would not be stand alone, but it would be part of a comprehensive package that would increase -- include the more controversial parts such as well legalization. we would prefer a market-based program in which the employer goes through a fairly rigorous process -- not an unreasonable one -- a fairly rigorous process where he is tried to recruit. if they could not fill the job with a domestic worker, it would be allowed to fill that job from abroad. we recognize politically they're still has to be a cap on that kind of program. the market base ideally would mean no cap. what would that cathy. the proxy of undocumented workers that come across the
border. we estimate between 400 and 500,000 a year. today, that number is down due to the economy. where the debate is with the union typically is -- what would be the cap? what exactly would an employer have to do to show they have achieved prior recruitment? right now we are in a move up, we do not want any worker program, we want a commission to study the idea. that is unacceptable to us. that is what most negotiations are about. we can work with that. we certainly have a in the past. the kennedy bill and prior versions of that. >> [unintelligible] >> in your view on h1b's?
in the past it has been much higher. >> yes, it has. the economy has not been hit this year, which adds to our argument that employers do not use this category just to hire cheap workers. if they did, they would use them in a tough economy. they have not reached that cap because it in a down economy, they are not being included. more than 65,000 -- i do not know. ed i think in the past when the economy was booming, we were at 198,000, and those have all been used up. i would guess between 150,200 thousand. >> [unintelligible] a little bit about your priorities with congress coming back, and if you can talk about how that dovetails with your
political program? >> a lot of our priorities right now, lobbying, on the hill, putting aside the whole electorate is to make sure -- we do have problems with the paycheck fairness act. we have rapidly extended the equal pay act. it makes it marginally more difficult for an employer to defend his or her case. george miller has a bill out of the house on osha reform, which we have significant problems with because of what we think are unfair levels of damages. they need to have the ability to abate their damages before they have their say in court. and then, of course, given the nature of the beast on capitol
hill right now, anything that can be popped into an appropriations bill, an expansion or whatever. we are in a defensive posture. ideally, we will work to -- we will work with some to introduce a bill that would improve the case of small businesses. when they are found innocent, they would get their attorneys' fees reimbursed. that sounds like a small bill. the actual purpose of the bill would be to say, look, if you are a small little guy and you prove your case, you get your money back. otherwise the men and women running these companies just get bludgeoned in the settlements. they have no chance unless they have a chance of being reimbursed for their cost. there are other things i could tell you. the regulatory side is a